Sensible Erection | Assange granted asylum by Ecuador

Thursday, 16 August 2012

quote [ Mr Assange took refuge at the embassy in June to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over assault and rape claims, which he denies. ]

There is some irony in his now depending on the kind of diplomatic machinations that Wikileaks famously exposed.

[politics] [by sanepride@4:31pmGMT] [+10 Good]

Comments

spazm said @ 4:39pm GMT on 16th Aug
Somewhat related and pretty much insane

sanepride said @ 4:44pm GMT on 16th Aug
This was yesterday, before the official granting of asylum (which seems to have been prompted by these threats).
Now the Brits are threatening to revoke Ecuador's diplomatic status.

spazm said @ 4:49pm GMT on 16th Aug
Ah I see... didn't notice it wasn't official yet, my bad. Still disturbing (and getting more disturbing by the way).

val said @ 4:50pm GMT on 16th Aug
Now he just has to get there.

Mr. Langosta said @ 5:12pm GMT on 16th Aug
This whole thing is such a fucking cool story. I bet he'll walk out all Thomas Crown Affair style.

kichijoii said @ 8:12am GMT on 17th Aug
I dunno, where are you gonna find 20 guys who look like Assange? I guess they could all wear bowler hats, which would double as a nice "fuck you" to Britain.

moriati said @ 5:28pm GMT on 16th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Why won't Sweden offer assurance that they would not allow extradition to the US? That would seem to solve a lot of the issues.

krimz said @ 5:41pm GMT on 16th Aug
Well the UK has not offered any such assurances and they have a closer relation to the US...

moriati said @ 5:51pm GMT on 16th Aug
The UK would not be in a position to assure that he would not be extradited from Sweden to the US, only the Swedish government could do this.

My understanding is that as the alleged offence is 'non-political' in nature then the UK are now obligated to facilitate his extradition to Sweden (all appeals having been exhausted).

The Swedes could, however, offer an assurance that they would resist an extradition request from the US. Couldn't they?

azazel said @ 6:05pm GMT on 16th Aug
They could, but Sweden's pretty much owned by the US these days.

krimz said @ 6:13pm GMT on 16th Aug
I'm not really qualified to answer but it's probably due to the fact that the US hasn't made any actual requests to have him extradited. From Sweden's point of view there's no chance of this actually happening so there's no point of making a formal political statement based on a hypothetical situation.

krimz said @ 6:35pm GMT on 16th Aug
Also I think it's about prestige now. What Assange is saying is basically that he doesn't trust the Swedish judiciary system and that he is a special case.

sanepride said @ 6:44pm GMT on 16th Aug
The funny thing is all of this drama and wrangling would be easily avoided if Assange simply surrenders to the Swedish authorities and faces the charges against him. He will get as fair a trial as he would anywhere in the world, probably with access to the best possible defense. Even if he were convicted he would end up serving a short sentence in a probably comfortable Swedish prison (they probably even have a sauna). There is no particular indication that the US or anyone else would try to extradite or charge him.
Of course the indications are that Assange has no interest in a simple resolution to this issue and prefers to remain a source of high drama and intrigue. Whatever importance Wikileaks has attained as the worlds foremost whistle-blower is sadly diminished as it becomes less about exposing misdeeds and more about Julian Assange and his alleged misdeeds.

chold_numa said @ 10:09pm GMT on 16th Aug
The thing is, they could extrdite him to Sweden via the US. The second the plane lands on US soil, he'll get charged. My understanding is that that's what we do in Australia for non-citizen criminals who are wanted in the US.

EPT said @ 1:27am GMT on 17th Aug
There is no particular indication that the US or anyone else would try to extradite or charge him.

Where do you get this idea from? The US extradites people all the time and on smaller crimes. Supposing they do want the triangle of extradition? Of course they're laying low, because if they trumpet it, Assange's lawyers' case is won against the move to Sweden.

sanepride said @ 2:35am GMT on 17th Aug
For one thing Assange hasn't been charged with a crime. I don't know where you're getting the idea he has, unless it's from random idiots like Sarah Palin calling for his head. Just fyi: that doesn't count.

foobar said @ 2:39am GMT on 17th Aug
A secret indictment was revealed when Stratfor got hacked.

sanepride said @ 3:17am GMT on 17th Aug
Yeah, note the question mark on that headline.
That 'secret indictment' is very much in question, as is the importance and reliability of Stratfor, the 'private intelligence firm' whose hacked email mentioned it.

EPT said @ 3:38am GMT on 17th Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
The UK is openly threatening to violate an embassy over a common criminal case? Sweden is openly not following its own due process? At this point, you still seriously believe that there's nothing murky going on behind the scenes?

That 'secret indictment' is very much in question

Let's turn that implication around: please prove that there is no secret indictment. You've just said that it's all fluff, but you've given no supporting evidence, just claimed it.

As I say elsewhere, if the US want him, of course they're going to lay low, because making public noise about wanting him will lend strength to the defense Assange's lawyers are using.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 11:21am GMT on 17th Aug
Asking to prove a negative is an idiots game

EPT said @ 3:02pm GMT on 17th Aug
*slow clap*

Did you happen to notice that this was in response to 'the existence of a secret thing is questionable'?

sanepride said @ 4:38pm GMT on 17th Aug
Well it is always mighty easy to claim there may some secret thing based on anybody's rumor. Isn't this how wild conspiracy theories get started? When I read about something like this my strategy is to look at the sources and try to figure out who is more reliable. But granted, all we can do is guess and use a little logic. From the logic point of view, there's really no sensible reason for the US to indict Assange, secretly or publicly. It makes a lot more sense to try to minimize his importance, which is not to say that the US gov't doesn't frequently defy logic and common sense.
From the source point of view, I thought it was funny that the RS article foobar linked to cited a credible debunking source itself, dismissively as a "typical response" from "the usual suspects in the Beltway media"- this piece in the Atlantic. I read this and thought if every bit as credible, if not more so than the guy writing in RS. Are we to just dismiss it because the RS guy considers it 'Beltway media'? I guess this is where each of us decides who to believe and why, and obviously our differences will depend on our point of views and sense of logic and common sense. I find the Atlantic piece in this case more plausible.

EPT said @ 3:06pm GMT on 17th Aug
Here you go, from the website of the respected broadsheet in my hometown. A FOIA request has pulled some diplomatic cables showing that the Australian diplomatic service believes the US is going to extradite him.

sanepride said @ 4:46pm GMT on 17th Aug
Sure, this is interesting, though still just rumor and innuendo. Slightly more solid than the Stratfor emails.
All we can do is wait and see. The real tell is whether there is any US involvement in the British standoff with Ecuador.

EPT said @ 2:14am GMT on 18th Aug
Oh, for fuck's sake. This is from the Australian diplomatic cables as revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request, not some gutter tabloid.

You know, all this came from 'Assange hasn't been charged with a crime', which is true. The US hasn't charged him with a crime. It's also true that Sweden hasn't charged him with a crime. Sweden has initiated criminal proceedings against him, just like the US has. And yet Sweden are trying to extradite him... but apparently the US aren't, because like Sweden, they haven't charged him.

zarathustra said @ 4:26am GMT on 17th Aug
The nature of the underlying offense is irrelevant if the decision to pursue it is politically motivated. Persecutors don't charge people with "bad politics stuff" they charge them with being a habitual speeder, crimes against nature, or other things that 90 percent of the population is also guilty of. The fact that they are singled out makes it political.

I don't know if that is the case here, but, form what I have read in passing there is some indication that the charges were only pursued when the political stuff arose. While others may find differently this would be enough allow a reasonable trier of fact to decide that they were brought for political reasons.

EPT said @ 1:22am GMT on 17th Aug
He faces the death penalty in the US, hence it's easy to block the extradition from the UK as he faces harsh and unusual punishment.

sanepride said @ 2:33am GMT on 17th Aug
No he doesn't. Death penalty for what? He hasn't even been indicted for anything, much less charged.

EPT said @ 3:47am GMT on 17th Aug
There seems to be enough merit in the idea for a new country to use it as a political football.

EPT said @ 10:26am GMT on 17th Aug
My apologies, it's not the death sentence - that's a potential sentence for Manning. It is however a throw-away-the-key sentence, and US jails aren't exactly humane places.

sanepride said @ 8:35pm GMT on 17th Aug
The death sentence is also off the table for Manning. It is a potential penalty for the crimes he's accused of, but prosecutors aren't seeking it.

sanepride said @ 6:04pm GMT on 16th Aug
I don't think the US is actively seeking his extradition. With Assange essentially a prisoner in the Ecuadoran UK embassy and Wikileaks effectively shut down by a DOS attack, US authorities are probably satisfied with the status-quo. Besides, bringing him to the US and publicly charging him would in a way elevate his status. There's probably a concerted effort to keep Assange marginalized as simply a sex-crime fugitive.

scojam said @ 6:36pm GMT on 16th Aug
Back up? http://wikileaks.org/

structured_spirits said @ 11:11pm GMT on 16th Aug
See I think they want him holed up in some 3rd world place instead of being put on trial too. I think he probably would have had some kind of "accident" had he returned to Sweden. And most probably he'll end up disappearing or drowning in a pool in Ecuador in a few years once people aren't paying attention. He fucked with elites after all.

EPT said @ 1:28am GMT on 17th Aug
Assange walking around free gets to do more damage. Assange locked up in a cage is news for a week, then everyone moves onto the next scandal.

sanepride said @ 2:39am GMT on 17th Aug
Assange is just one self-important man. If Wikileaks has any true, lasting relevance, he shouldn't matter one iota, free or locked up.

EPT said @ 3:42am GMT on 17th Aug
Firstly, shouldn't isn't doesn't. But anyway, that doesn't mean he can't agitate in channels other than Wikileaks.

Asscheeks Akimbo said @ 5:29pm GMT on 16th Aug
Feh.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 6:17pm GMT on 16th Aug
The irony is the Ecuador is a sex tourism destination....

The funny part is, if someone wanted to snatch him, Ecuador is a perfect spot.

Now if only Roman Polanski would direct a movie based on Assange's life

sanepride said @ 6:33pm GMT on 16th Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
I don't think anyone wants to snatch Assange as much as he imagines they do.

Ronin.ca said @ 9:44pm GMT on 16th Aug
I keep thinking that if the US/UK REALLY wanted him snatched/dead/rendered as badly as he and his fans believe they do then I reckon he'd already be snatched/dead/rendered..

chold_numa said @ 10:13pm GMT on 16th Aug
They just want him neutralised. Which is what is happening now. Wring him through the court system for a decade or two (Swedish, US, or British) and he'll be in no state to do anything.

foobar said @ 11:59pm GMT on 16th Aug
He became irrelevant the moment the US freaked out and refused to cooperate with the leaks. The only thing Wikileaks does that Anonymous doesn't is negotiate a compromise.

EPT said @ 1:02am GMT on 17th Aug
The US extradited an Australian citizen who had never set foot on US soil for the crime of mere copyright infringement. Do you really think they couldn't be bothered going after someone who really has hurt the establishment?

chold_numa said @ 1:25am GMT on 17th Aug
Both sides of politics in Australia are overly deferential to the US, based largely on this "great and powerful friends" thinking which generally provides few dividends when the chips are on the table.

The our contribution to the war in Afghanistan was something like $2 billion last time I checked. If we had instead spent the money on stabilising PNG, the Solomons, and Fiji along with building cultural ties with Indonesia, we'd be much better off from a regional security point of view. Along with that, we somehow buy a lot of American military equipment which isn't necessarily the best fit for most of the theaters Australia would likely be engaged in.

EPT said @ 1:51am GMT on 17th Aug
In all honesty, I think that our involvement in Afghanistan is as much about keeping our military in practice as satisfying political goals. We don't really have much of a commitment there - 30 dead soldiers in 10 years is not really a war.

We are building a lot of ties with Indonesia that the media doesn't pick up, but I don't know about efforts with the other countries. In terms of defense of the country, only Indonesia is a concern, everything else is more of a political toy: nice to have, but no economic or military consequence. We certainly have a moral duty to assist, but it's not as imperative as defusing tensions with Indonesia.

I fully agree with what you're saying, but it ain't gonna change. The US has us over a barrel, mostly because we bent over it ourselves saying 'come get it, big boy'.

chold_numa said @ 3:05am GMT on 17th Aug
Yeah, it's the reality, but I'll raise a few points:

a) we're not giving our pilots enough flying hours (due to budget constraints)
b) there are very few mountainous areas where Australian forces would likely be engaged in defence of the country
c) we need to stop Pacific nations from becoming failed states as (very) reasonably, we'd have to take their refugees in if things got too hot. Also, we need to help them with global warming for similar reasons.

The "all the way with the USA" thing grates a little, especially when it doesn't serve our best interest.

EPT said @ 3:45am GMT on 17th Aug
That's a good point about c) which I hadn't fully realised. In terms of b), it's not just terrain training, it's also the logistical support in a remote, foreign country, interoperation with allied nations in a real, ongoing environment, experience with insurgency, experience dealing with locals who don't speak the same language, so on and so forth, and not so much combat experience (hence the small number of deaths).

EPT said @ 1:39am GMT on 17th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
I don't know about you, but any foreign government running a criminal investigation into my affairs is cause for concern for me. I would fight extradition for any crime no matter how trivial.

hellboy said @ 2:05am GMT on 17th Aug [Score:2 Insightful]
If no one wants to snatch Assange, why did the British government send a letter to the Ecuadoran government threatening to revoke their diplomatic status and raid their embassy?

todde said @ 6:22pm GMT on 16th Aug [Score:2 Insightful]
When Iranians stormed the British embassy the UK Diplomatic Corps was bristling with righteous indignation. Now Number 10 is officially considering storming the Ecuadoran embassy to get Assange.

But that's different.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 7:06pm GMT on 16th Aug
I agree. It is different.

1) In Iran, it was a mob of "students" who stormed the embassy upset over international sanctions....not because there was a fugitive from the law inside

2) Britain, by their own law, must give the Ecuadorians 2 months notice. I am pretty sure, if it happens, and it probably won't for a number of reasons, that the police will not be burning any ecuadoran flags etc etc.

So again, you are correct, it is different,

sanepride said @ 7:23pm GMT on 16th Aug
Despite the current diplomatic pissing contest, I predict that no embassy will be stormed and on ones diplomatic status will be revoked. Frankly I'm surprised the Brits are making such a big fuss about Assange. I guess their pride's a little sullied at having an upstart South American country thumb their nose at them.
Again.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 7:34pm GMT on 16th Aug
No but I expect Sweden and Britain to expel the Ecuadoran ambassadors in the next week.

Pity Ecuador has no navy to sink...like the last time a South American country under estimated them

sanepride said @ 7:44pm GMT on 16th Aug
I'll be surprised if it even comes to that.

EPT said @ 1:06am GMT on 17th Aug [Score:3 Underrated]
Their own law is fucking stupid. The Vienna Convention is the international treaty whereby embassies are generally held inviolable.

If the UK breaks this treaty to apprehend a suspect in a case which has nothing to do with the national interest, it sets a dangerous precedent. "Hey, if the UK can violate the sanctity of an embassy to go after a small-time crook, why can't we?". Assange may be famous, but what he's wanted for is common as muck.

Weakening the power of the sanctity of embassies is not worth chasing after one man for a crime of no national significance.

Ronin.ca said @ 9:41pm GMT on 16th Aug
You know that the word "stormed" has a meaning right? And this meaning does not actually include "riot cops to deal with protestors and then two or four (depending who you believe) unarmed cops going into the embassy with Ecuadorian officials for a polite visit"...

People have to learn that words have meanings.

bltrocker said @ 10:14pm GMT on 16th Aug [Score:1 Funny]
HFCS IS REAL SUGAR!

ArthurPhilipDent said @ 6:39pm GMT on 16th Aug [Score:5 Insightful]
Stupid US DoD: classifying mountains of information that don't actually need to be classified and lumping it together with shit that is actually very sensitive and important.

Stupid US DoD: letting a disturbed and undisciplined PFC have access to the entire universe of low-to-mid-level classified information, including a lot of shit that really does need to be classified.

Stupid Manning: downloading and leaking these entire databases without taking responsibility for sorting what should and should not actually be leaked from any moral perspective.

Stupid Assange: publishing these entire databases without taking responsibility for sorting what should and should not actually be published from any moral perspective.

Stupid Manning: bragging to random hacker supposed BFFs about what you did

Stupid US DoD: getting so angry at Manning that you threaten your whole court martial by holding him in punitive conditions and making him look like a poor martyr

Stupid Assange: being such an incredible asshole to two women to such an extreme extent that you actually subject yourself to potential prosecution under local law

Stupid Swedish judicial system: making things difficult for everybody by not having a process to get a bench warrant to arrest someone unless they've already been brought in and questioned in person

Stupid Assange: thinking that procedural technicality would actually get you off the hook from another EU country;s justice

Stupid Assange's friends: thinking that such a giant asshole could be relied upon to keep to his bail conditions even if he lost his sex-asshole extradition appeal

Stupid Assange: choosing as your new sugar daddy a guy whose reputation on free speech is diametrically opposed to what you and your entire base have been standing for during the past five years

Stupid Correa: thinking that becoming a hero to morally confused Assange fanboys is worth pissing off both the US and Europe at the same time and harboring an accused sex fiend

Stupid US DoJ: not actually telling people whether you have a theory, an investigation, or an indictment pursuant to prosecuting Assange for something

Stupid Assange fanboys: thinking there is actually any chance that, even if extradited to the US, Assange would seriously face detention in Guantanamo or the death penalty

Stupid Parliament: Passing the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 with a back door big enough to sent a SWAT team through whenever you want, when international diplomatic conventions generally don't let you

Stupid Other Countries: not realizing that UK law was trying to reserve this right even in circumstances that are hardly extreme

Stupid UK Foreign Office: actually threatening to use the loophole to raid an embassy for one pathetic asshole, when far more good is done by keeping free countries' embassies secure in totalitarian states

Stupid Ecuador: implying this has anything to do with colonialism

Did I miss anybody?

sanepride said @ 6:51pm GMT on 16th Aug
Nice summing up, except
Stupid US DoJ: not actually telling people whether you have a theory, an investigation, or an indictment pursuant to prosecuting Assange for something

Why do they need to tell people if they don't actually have any of the above?
"Attention everyone who we are not actively pursuing or investigating: we are issuing an official statement to inform you that we are not actively pursuing or investigating you".

rangerx said @ 7:31pm GMT on 16th Aug
Wow. So much stupidity, it could be American reality TV.

foobar said @ 8:21pm GMT on 16th Aug [Score:3 Underrated]
Assange did try to filter the documents prior to release. He even invited the Americans to assist.

Next time, everything will just be released without any filtering, Anonymously.

sanepride said @ 6:02pm GMT on 17th Aug
Really he didn't. He did invite the US to assist, knowing full well they'd say no. He made no further attempt and released the docs unfiltered, being able to say he at least tried.

foobar said @ 10:36pm GMT on 17th Aug
He did do some redacting, as he had the resources to do. Later one of the newspapers he'd released the whole thing to (to help with that redacting) released the encryption key to the whole thing.

Homer Simpson said @ 9:25pm GMT on 16th Aug
Stupid Flanders!

EPT said @ 1:19am GMT on 17th Aug [Score:1 Underrated]
Stupid Assange fanboys: thinking there is actually any chance that, even if extradited to the US, Assange would seriously face detention in Guantanamo or the death penalty

I'm not an Assange fanboy and don't care either way about him, but I do care that people aren't focusing enough on the politics of the situation.

Thing is, he does face the death penalty. It's why the UK won't extradite him directly to the US. It's immaterial whether you think it would happen; it's a plausible outcome of the trial. And if not the death penalty, then one of the US's favourite style of 500-year sentences in a supermax prison can be considered harsh and unusual punishment.

Stupid Other Countries: not realizing that UK law was trying to reserve this right even in circumstances that are hardly extreme

What are other countries supposed to do about domestic law? Impose trade sanctions for every one considered unsavory? International relations would halt.

hellboy said @ 1:52am GMT on 17th Aug [Score:2]
Manning was held in solitary confinement for six months, repeatedly stripped naked, and still has yet to get a trial more than two years after his arrest.

Sweden has been found guilty of assisting the US by renditioning prisoners in violation of international law and refuses to promise they will not extradite Assange to the US - something which would probably in violation of British extradition law, not that the UK seems to care.

And the 51st state is going after Assange with a fervor they have not demonstrated with convicted pedophiles, allegedly as the result of intense pressure from the Obama administration, which has consistently demonstrated a contempt for the civil rights of whistleblowers and leakers well in excess of the evil Bush administration, something Obama fans steadfastly ignore.

Assange may be a narcissist, an egomaniac, a misogynist, a creep, and even a rapist. But I'd say he has damn good reason not to trust the Swedish government in this case.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 11:26am GMT on 17th Aug
Sweden was found guilty?

When was the trial? How did they plead? Was it before a jury?

EPT said @ 4:23pm GMT on 17th Aug
The United Nations' Human Rights Committee found on November 10, 2006, that Sweden had violated the International Covenant on Civil an Political Rights on most accounts when repatriating Mr. Alzeri.

Given that a jury is meant to be a collection of your peers, and this was done by the United Nations, then yes, it's probably as close to a jury as a nation is going to get.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 9:58pm GMT on 17th Aug
*cough* However, the Committee still found it was satisfied that Sweden had "at least plausible grounds for considering, at the time, the case in question to present national security concerns." In consequence, the Committee did not find "a violation of article 13 of the Covenant for the failure to be allowed to submit reasons against his deportation and have the case reviewed by a competent authority".*cough*

EPT said @ 2:04am GMT on 18th Aug
*cough* No attempt was made to explain how Mr. Alzery could plausibly constitute such a formidable security threat that he could not be held imprisoned during such a review, but had to be sent out of the territory the very same night. After all, what is known about the allegations that shall have been the basis for the decision to extradite him, alleged leadership and responsibility for acts of terrorism, are punishable with years of prison even in Sweden. However, the lack of such a review was held to be a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. *cough*

I mean seriously, man, what the fuck. This is the text that directly follows on from what you quoted. Talk about selective arguments.

hellboy said @ 1:43am GMT on 17th Aug [Score:2]
So why is it that England is threatening to revoke Ecuador's diplomatic status and raid their embassy in order to extradite Assange to Sweden, even though Assange has yet to be charged with any crime by Sweden...

...but no one revoked Switzerland's diplomatic status when they refused to extradite Polanksi - who was convicted of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl?

...and no one has revoked or threatened to revoke England's diplomatic status for refusing to extradite convicted pedophile Shawn Sullivan to face trial in Minnesota for raping and sexually molesting a 14 year old girl and two 11 year old girls?

What is it that's so special about Assange's alleged rapes of two women that makes them so much worse than the proven rape of one child or the alleged rapes of two other children by a known pedophile?

(cue Glenn Beck jokes)

EPT said @ 2:17am GMT on 17th Aug
There is apparently a peculiarity in Swedish law where you can't be charged until you're questioned. The UK court had recognised that while not technically charged as termed under UK law, equivalent criminal proceedings had been undertaken. That doesn't undermine the rest of your points, though.

sanepride said @ 2:46am GMT on 17th Aug
Not that you don't have valid questions here, but it should be noted that Assange has been charged with crimes in Sweden.

pleaides said @ 7:03am GMT on 17th Aug [Score:1 Interesting]
Interview with Geoffrey Robertson QC on Assange's situation that you guys might find informative.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2012/08/17/3569843.htm?site=sydney

chold_numa said @ 8:04am GMT on 17th Aug
WTF? Did Adam Spencer just give a plug for Puberty Blues at the end of that?

pleaides said @ 9:04am GMT on 17th Aug
It appears so. I believe that Kathy Lette (Robertson's annoying wife) wrote it.

cb said @ 8:07am GMT on 17th Aug
Sorry, I meant to mod +1 WTF

sanepride said @ 4:48pm GMT on 17th Aug
No worries. I've made this mistake myself.

Navier-Strokes said @ 11:28am GMT on 17th Aug
I'm not sure I like the precedent of allowing politically controversial people charged with rape to avoid trial by jury because it could be misconstrued as being politically charged.

pleaides said @ 2:11pm GMT on 17th Aug
I doubt anyone's arguing that he ought not be answerable for his crimes. Indeed, he's offered several times to put himself at the convenience of Swedish authorities (which he's already done btw) if he could be assured that he wouldn't be unceremoniously spirited over the seas to the waiting maw of American Military 'Justice' for an entirely separate (alleged) offense. If the Swedes offered that assurance all this crap would be over in a moment; the fact that they haven't can be viewed as a kind of evidence that the rape has nothing at all to do with why he's being pursued so vigorously. Would that all rapists were hounded so zealously.

krimz said @ 2:46pm GMT on 17th Aug [Score:1 Insightful]
"if he could be assured that he wouldn't be unceremoniously spirited over the seas to the waiting maw of American Military 'Justice' for an entirely separate (alleged) offense. If the Swedes offered that assurance all this crap would be over in a moment; the fact that they haven't can be viewed as a kind of evidence that the rape has nothing at all to do with why he's being pursued so vigorously."

I don't think you understand what it is he's actually asking for. He wants a carte blanche assertion that he won't be extradited to the US under any circumstances, which would be the equivalence of a get out of jail card in monopoly. That would mean circumventing the swedish judiciary system completely, i.e. Sweden would have to give political assurances that the government would bypass the country's own judicial due process on the off chance that the US would want to extradite Assange. Also, why hasn't he demanded this kind of assurances from the UK? They're under the same obligations (ECHR) as Sweden.

EPT said @ 3:15pm GMT on 17th Aug [Score:1 Informative]
Also, why hasn't he demanded this kind of assurances from the UK?

Because the UK has a proven track record of agitating to pull people out of the US's "rendition" when it stood up to the US to get its citizens out of gitmo, and Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over with no recourse.

krimz said @ 6:28pm GMT on 17th Aug
Yeah, that is a real black spot on Sweden. It was unlawful, done in secrecy and the parties involved are no longer in power (The foreign minister responsible at the time was assassinated.)

EPT said @ 2:25am GMT on 18th Aug
azazel up above says his country is owned by the US, just like I know Australia is owned by it. If Assange returns home, bam, he's gone. Our government would hand him over tout suite, because they fall over themselves to please the US and Assange is small fry.

Our previous government was incredibly sycophantic to the US. The current government is a different party... but that wouldn't change the outcome should Assange return. The US is still a heavily favoured ally.

Hence I think it's still reasonable to ask for assurances it won't happen again, rather than assume a change in government meant that you were safe, particularly given the strange behaviour of all parties in this event.

Navier-Strokes said @ 5:54pm GMT on 17th Aug
I think a friend of mine said it best.

"Whistleblowing is learning of some improper act that's been covered up and exposing it, not exposing all of some organization's secrets so people can look through them and see if there were improper acts."

Publishing classified documents about diplomatic cables without improper acts isn't whistle blowing, it's just illegal.

foobar said @ 2:24am GMT on 18th Aug
Do you imagine that every single page of the Pentagon Papers outlined a crime?

Navier-Strokes said @ 7:47am GMT on 18th Aug
The release of the diplomatic cables by Wikileaks included a list of things of heightened import to U.S. security. Not only is that not even remotely illegal to create, its publishing directly impacts the security of the US. Comparing that to the Pentagon Papers is foolhardy.

foobar said @ 8:37pm GMT on 18th Aug
The US was given the opportunity to suggest that be redacted. They declined.

Navier-Strokes said @ 12:15am GMT on 19th Aug
Could you give a citation for that?

edga alunpo said @ 12:18pm GMT on 20th Aug
To me this sounded like a conspiracy right from the beginning and I
have n't seen or read anything yet that's changed that opinion.

Two women who have sex with Assange get together afterwards to discuss his sex ratings.... and then decide that they have been "raped" ?

"Yeah, he fucked us both without a condom. Hey! thats' rape. Let go tell the cops!... (and find a woman who's on our side)".

On a person to person basis it's word against word. So who gets to be believed? (usually the women! - of course all men are bastards!) Did these women have any bruises (i.e. proof) to show for their rape? Fuck, they may even have been trying to get deliberately pregnant by him so they could scam him for support.

(to the women out there, I'm not saying I'm for rape, but there have been cases here in Germany lately where consenting females have freaked out afterwards and accused prominents of rape. The cases went down in court but cost these guys their careers, a fortune in lawyers and a lot of nerve)

EPT said @ 1:08pm GMT on 20th Aug
It's a fool's errand to try and establish guilt in a crime like rape without direct access to the people involved and the documentation.

It's also hard enough for people to report rape as it is, so it's unsurprising it might take some time to do so. I wouldn't hang my hat on that particular point. Fake rape cases are an issue, but again, without direct access to the information involved, no judgement should be passed (including by the media, not that they follow this maxim)