Latest Chapter in the Assange saga.

[CJvR]

Having almost run out of courts Assange writes the next chapter in his sad story.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is seeking political asylum at Ecuador's London embassy, the country's foreign minister has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18514726

[bobalot]

Julian Assange flees Britain. It appears $315,000 of supporters' donations now forfeit.

WikiLeaks’ Assange Flees to Ecuadorian Embassy

With just nine days left before he is set to be extradited to Sweden, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has applied for political asylum with Ecuador.

Assange appeared in person at the Ecuadorian embassy in London on Tuesday seeking protection and will remain there until Ecuadorian authorities rule on his application for asylum, according to a statement from the embassy.

“The decision to consider Mr Assange’s application for protective asylum should in no way be interpreted as the Government of Ecuador interfering in the judicial processes of either the United Kingdom or Sweden,” the embassy said in the statement.

According to a separate statement from Ecuador’s foreign ministry, Assange asserted that Australia, his native country, appeared to have no plans to protect him, which put him in a state of “helplessness.” He was therefore asking Ecuador to provide him with asylum.

Ecuador is “evaluating the request of Mr. Julian Assange and any decision on it will take into account respect for the rules and principles of international law and the traditional policy of Ecuador to safeguarding human rights,” Ecuadorian officials said in the statement.

Under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” However, the second clause of the article states that “the right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

Ecuador and the UK voted in favor of the UDHR, and it has the status of international law.

Assange, however, is not accused of political crimes. He is being sought for questioning in Sweden on rape and coercion allegations stemming from separate sexual relations he had with two women in that country in August 2010. One woman told police that Assange pinned her down to have sex with her and that she suspected he intentionally tore a condom he wore. The second woman reported that he had sex with her while she was initially asleep, failing to wear a condom despite repeated requests for him to do so. Assange was in the country applying for residency so that he might benefit from Sweden’s strong press protection laws.

Assange has denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the sex in both cases was consensual.

He was ordered to return to Sweden last week to face the allegations after the UK Supreme Court rejected a bid to re-open his appeal case there. The judges gave him a two-week reprieve before extradition proceedings would begin, saving him from being immediately ejected from the country.

It’s unclear whether his holding up in the Ecuadorian embassy would make him a fugitive triggering a warrant for his immediate arrest. A spokesman for the Metropolitan police reached late in the evening in London on Tuesday told Wired that authorities would likely be evaluating the situation in the morning.

“Generally speaking, if someone does breach their bail conditions, then they become liable to arrest,” spokesman Simon Fisher said. “It depends on if and when he breaches the parameters of his bail conditions.”

Assange was freed on $300,000 bail in Dec. 2010, with conditions. He had to surrender his passport, agree to travel restrictions, adhere to a curfew and wear an electronic tracking device. He is required to report into a local police station by 10pm each evening in Kent, the neighborhood where he has been living. It’s unclear, if he failed to report to police Tuesday evening after seeking refuge in the Ecuador embassy, if that would qualify as violating his bail conditions.

U.S. documentary filmmaker Michael Moore contributed $20,000 to Assange’s bail. British heiress Jemima Khan and other celebrities also reportedly offered to cover his bail at the time. It’s unclear what the status of that bail money would be if Assange is granted asylum in Ecuador. In a Twitter exchange with the deputy editor of the Guardian newspaper in London, Khan acknowledged she had put up some of Assange’s bail money and said that she had expected Assange “to face the allegations.”

“I am as surprised as anyone by this,” she wrote in a tweet.

Assange failed to make an appearance at a Supreme Court hearing two weeks ago when the court was scheduled to rule on his appeal. According to reports on Twitter from people who had spoken with him that morning, he said he was caught in traffic, prompting speculation that he might have been preparing to flee to avoid being taken into custody immediately by court authorities.

Assange’s defense team has claimed that the Swedish government is acting on behalf of the US to extradite Assange to Sweden so that he could be further extradited to the US to face criminal charges related to WikiLeaks’ publication of thousands of documents from the Afghan and Iraq wars, as well as US diplomatic cables.

But UK prosecutor Clare Montgomery, who was in an early court proceeding representing Swedish authorities, said that even if the US requested extradition of Assange from Sweden, no such extradition could take place without consent from UK authorities.

Sweden announced last week that Assange will be imprisoned after he is handed over to Swedish authorities and will have a court hearing four days after extradition from the United Kingdom to decide if he will stay in custody.

Update 5:20 pm EST:To add comment from Metropolitan Police spokesman.

Additional reporting by Juha Saarinen

I, still to this date, don't understand the hero worship this guy gets. He's a fucking douche accused of sexual assault in Sweden.

Apparently, it's all an US government plot to extradite to the US... even though they could just extradite from the UK like this guy, who was accused of piracy. Even extradition from Sweden would have to be approved by the UK (since they only agreed to extradition to Sweden and not any other country).

The excuse seems incredibly convoluted.

[Mr Bean]

I still to this date, don't understand the hero worship this guy gets. He's a fucking douche accused of sexual assault in Sweden.

Apparently, it's all an US government plot to extradite to the US... even though they could just extradite from the UK like this guy who was accused of piracy. Even extradition from Sweden would have to be approved by the UK (since they only agreed to extradition to Sweden and not any other country).

The excuse seems incredibly convoluted.

Already posted
here

[bobalot]

Already posted
here

My mistake, could we merge these threads?

[bobalot]

As I was saying in my duplicate thread.

I, still to this date, don't understand the hero worship this guy gets. He's a fucking douche accused of sexual assault in Sweden.

Apparently, it's all an US government plot to extradite to the US... even though they could just extradite from the UK like this guy, who was accused of piracy. Even extradition from Sweden would have to be approved by the UK (since they only agreed to extradition to Sweden and not any other country).

[Mr Bean]

As I was saying in my duplicate thread.

I, still to this date, don't understand the hero worship this guy gets. He's a fucking douche accused of sexual assault in Sweden.

Apparently, it's all an US government plot to extradite to the US... even though they could just extradite from the UK like this guy, who was accused of piracy. Even extradition from Sweden would have to be approved by the UK (since they only agreed to extradition to Sweden and not any other country).

Eric Holder, Obama's U.S. Attorney General has said that the administration was looking into charging him under the Espionage act. Bradley Manning the soldier charged with the leaks has told the Press via his lawyer that they (US interrogators) have repeatably tried to get Manning to say or sign statements that Assange encouraged him to leak the cables and offered help in distributing them.

Further there are a half dozen US senators and thirty to forty US Representatives and one Willard Romeny who have said that Assange should be arrested an extradited to the US to stand trial, amusingly most say for Treason despite the fact that Assange is not a US citizen and thus unable to commit that act.

It is still the widely held belief by many that the instant Assange leaves the UK to go to Sweden he will vanish in route and show up in Gitmo as Sweden's extradition laws a far looser than the United Kingdoms. Assange did not pick the UK by accident, but because he had support there and one of the best (As in easy to defend yourself) set of laws for extraditing someone.

Considering Sweden's enforcement rate when it comes to sexual assaults is pretty bad it's obvious the only reason this is being prosecuted is because of his fame and international standing as the man who embarrassed the United States publicly. And there is strong feeling that the charges themselves are ginned up, the women in question government dupes considering the reporting circumstances and the fact that lets be honest the way this case was handled was skeevy from the start.

First he was wanted for questioning, and he offered to tell them anything they wanted to know inculded paying the cost of flying prosecutors out to the United Kingdom if they did not want to do it over the phone. Then weeks later after them refusing offer after offer of meeting anywhere except on Swedish soil(Sweden's prosecutors said he must be questioned in Sweden) they issued an arrest warrant. Considering the maximum level punishment for his alleged crime is less than five years in prison and a tiny fine the level of detail and effort spent by the Swedish government leads many to believe that the instant he hits Sweden he might be charged, tried and then instantly handed over the United States.

[bobalot]

This still doesn't change the fact that the US can attempt to extradite him from the UK, if they wanted to, right now.

Extraditing from Sweden is more problematic as it would require agreement from both British and Swedish authorities (as the British extradition agreement with Sweden only covers extradition to Sweden).

All I see is fact free conjecture about some nefarious US government plot that requires the co-opting of the governments and legal systems of three countries to actually succeed.

Sounds like a gigantic load of bullshit to me.

[Mange]

It is still the widely held belief by many that the instant Assange leaves the UK to go to Sweden he will vanish in route and show up in Gitmo as Sweden's extradition laws a far looser than the United Kingdoms.

That's nonsense. The UK extradites its own citizens to non-European countries which Sweden doesn't. As for a citizen of another country: This isn't some sort of banana republic. For a citizen of another country to be extradited to a third country, the person in question must have committed an act that is criminal in Sweden and for which the prison term is one year or more. Handing over classified documents to a third party is a crime of course. For the third party then to publish or distributing them is not a crime in Sweden.

Also, a person isn't extradited if he or she risks capital punishment and/or cruel and degrading treatment.

Considering Sweden's enforcement rate when it comes to sexual assaults is pretty bad it's obvious the only reason this is being prosecuted is because of his fame and international standing as the man who embarrassed the United States publicly.

Sweden has the highest number of reported sexual assaults within the European Union but it's a difficult crime to investigate. But that the enforcement rate would be "pretty bad"? There's a low tolerance for such crimes.

And before making such a definitive statement, haven't you considered that it's something for the court to decide? (If it comes to that which I doubt.)

First he was wanted for questioning, and he offered to tell them anything they wanted to know inculded paying the cost of flying prosecutors out to the United Kingdom if they did not want to do it over the phone. Then weeks later after them refusing offer after offer of meeting anywhere except on Swedish soil(Sweden's prosecutors said he must be questioned in Sweden) they issued an arrest warrant. Considering the maximum level punishment for his alleged crime is less than five years in prison and a tiny fine the level of detail and effort spent by the Swedish government leads many to believe that the instant he hits Sweden he might be charged, tried and then instantly handed over the United States.

Why would he have been questioned in the UK? The alleged incident took place in Sweden. And that he would be "instantly handed over" is ridiculous on so many levels.

[Mr Bean]

You missing a difference between the UK and Swedish law, in Sweden you can be extradited without charge, in the UK you can not. Given we want to subject Assange to a military tribunal not a civilian court, Swedish law allows extradition under these circumstances (Extradition without formal charges) UK law does not.

[cosmicalstorm]

Sweden did extradite a few suspicious Muslims that nobody knew about a couple of years ago, memory serves me right it was a few months after 9/11 so it was likely a panicked initiative. It was probably a political move ordered from the top with little involvement from our legal system. When it later became known it caused a long lasting debate that have hurt the politicians who ordered it. As a Swedish citizen I remain very skeptical that Julian Assange would ever be extradited to USA from Sweden should he come here, that would be very uncomfortable for any political party in power at the time.

[Serafina]

I actually believe that Assange raped those two women, but i also believe he is fully justified in staying out of Sweden for fear of extradition for an unrelated crime he did not actually commit. Those two cases are unrelated after all, his guilt (or lack of it) of rape is completely unrelated to his lack of guilt (or presence thereof) of "treason" towards the USA.


Also, newsflash:
The enforcement rate for rape is horrible in every country in the world.
Furthermore, report rate does not equal enforcement rate - just because people report a crime doesn't mean that the perpetrator will be found and convicted. And most rapists aren't - not because it's hard to prove, or because you can't find the anonymous guy who jumped from the shadows - but because most rape charges are dismissed because police, attorney or judge do not believe the victim. After all most rapes are perpetrated by someone familiar (friend, spouse, neighbor etc.) - just like in this situation - so accusations like "she wanted it" or "she just made it up to get revenge" fly around more often than one would like to think.

[Mange]

You missing a difference between the UK and Swedish law, in Sweden you can be extradited without charge, in the UK you can not. Given we want to subject Assange to a military tribunal not a civilian court, Swedish law allows extradition under these circumstances (Extradition without formal charges) UK law does not.

Uh, what's your source for that? One of the many caricatures of the Swedish justice system? You do know that he hasn't been charged in Sweden, don't you? And no, it doesn't matter if it's a military tribunal (which is nonsense from the most conservative elements) or a civilian court: If the act isn't criminal in Sweden, then the person isn't extradited (the same is true whether it's a European arrest warrant or if it's a request from a non-European country).

Furthermore, report rate does not equal enforcement rate - just because people report a crime doesn't mean that the perpetrator will be found and convicted.

Yes, that's absolutely true of course.

According to The European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, the conviction rate for rape in Sweden was amongst the highest in Europe in 2007 and well above the average for sexual assault.

[Simon_Jester]

I think we can summarize by saying:

As I was saying in my duplicate thread.

I, still to this date, don't understand the hero worship this guy gets. He's a fucking douche accused of sexual assault in Sweden.

Apparently, it's all an US government plot to extradite to the US... even though they could just extradite from the UK like this guy, who was accused of piracy. Even extradition from Sweden would have to be approved by the UK (since they only agreed to extradition to Sweden and not any other country).

Sounds like this is based on people having a low opinion of the Swedish judiciary, and expecting it to collaborate with the Americans. The Swedes I'm hearing from here don't expect that to happen- I'm not qualified to judge whether they're right, but I take them seriously.

The other side of it is that Assange is one of the people who is standing up to the current international order in a high-profile way and doing something at least vaguely effective to keep it from getting worse. To people who dislike the imperialism and the obsessive secrecy and the disregard for human rights that plague the developed world's side in the "War on Terror," Assange comes up looking pretty good just because he's bothering to fight back, unlike the elected governments of practically all countries in the world.

[Rahvin]

I actually believe that Assange raped those two women,

Why?

I'm genuinely curious, as I have only a peripheral knowledge of the accusations, and the brief statements in the article posted are basically what I know of them. I know of no evidence beyond accusation (though granted rape can be extremely difficult to prove one way or the other, particularly of the type Assange is accused of, where you wouldn't necessarily find additional evidence of assault or injury). The timing of the accusations did not correspond (as I recall) to the actual incidents, but rather the alleged victims only came forward after an international media circus had already spawned in the meantime surrounding Assange and Wikileaks.

Honestly, what I know isn't enough to sway me one way or the other on the matter of his guilt or innocence in the sexual assault/rape charges. I find the timing curious, and that's about it. Do you have some additional information that makes his guilt likely?

[Spoonist]

I actually believe that Assange raped those two women,

Why?

Because he has confirmed parts of the circumstances before he realised they were prosecutable?

Because other people who knows him and has worked with him confirms that he is an asshole when it comes to women under similar circumstances.

But also note that the standing suspicion is "sexcrime/molestation" not rape as in forced intercourse. The speculations thus revolve around VD and/or lying about protection.

[Stofsk]

Put me down for 'Fuck Assange' camp and I too can't see how this guy enjoys such a level of hero worship from people.

First he was wanted for questioning, and he offered to tell them anything they wanted to know inculded paying the cost of flying prosecutors out to the United Kingdom if they did not want to do it over the phone. Then weeks later after them refusing offer after offer of meeting anywhere except on Swedish soil(Sweden's prosecutors said he must be questioned in Sweden) they issued an arrest warrant.

I want you to be honest. Do you seriously think it is in any way reasonable for a suspect of alleged sex crimes to dictate to investigating authorities when, where and how they can be allowed to question him?

Should ANY investigating criminal justice body accept and tolerate that?

Considering the maximum level punishment for his alleged crime is less than five years in prison and a tiny fine the level of detail and effort spent by the Swedish government leads many to believe that the instant he hits Sweden he might be charged, tried and then instantly handed over the United States.

Perhaps the Swedish criminal justice system takes this shit seriously? Furthermore, who has actually escalated this situation to the level of farce? Your point is that the alleged crime has a low max sentence and low fine attached to it, I presume you're implying that the crime is therefore 'not very serious'. If that's the case, why doesn't Assange grow a fucking pair, man the fuck up, and surrender himself and cop whatever he's got on the chin? Especially if, as he says, the allegations are 'baseless'. Everyone else has already chimed in with points about how Sweden don't extradite people for things they don't consider to be a crime, and American rhetoric notwithstanding, if they had an actionable case against him they'd probably have a welcome reception in Britain just as easily as they could have in Sweden.

The fact is, he's fled the country and violated his bail. I don't see how this can end well for him. Any claim of innocence goes up in smoke when the accused tries to do a runner.

[Rahvin]

I actually believe that Assange raped those two women,

Why?

Because he has confirmed parts of the circumstances before he realised they were prosecutable?

Because other people who knows him and has worked with him confirms that he is an asshole when it comes to women under similar circumstances.

Thanks. Do you know what he confirmed? From your comments, I take it that it was more along the lines of an admission that he didn't use protection as demanded as opposed to just a base admission that there was intercourse.

But also note that the standing suspicion is "sexcrime/molestation" not rape as in forced intercourse. The speculations thus revolve around VD and/or lying about protection.

I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of sex crime law in particular and Swedish law in general. From what I'm gathering, these charges amount to an accusation of intentionally breaking or not using a condom when the victim instructed that he use protection. Is that accurate?

[CJvR]

The "ship him on to the Gitmo" paranoia is really amusing. Not only would it be illegal to ship him to the US without approval from the UK but he would have an immunity period against extradition requests for a period should he be released.

[Ralin]

The "ship him on to the Gitmo" paranoia is really amusing. Not only would it be illegal to ship him to the US without approval from the UK but he would have an immunity period against extradition requests for a period should he be released.

In case you haven't noticed, the US government hasn't given much of a damn about laws these past several years.

[Ziggy Stardust]

In case you haven't noticed, the US government hasn't given much of a damn about laws these past several years.

If they didn't care about laws, why not just kidnap Assange, extradite him directly to the US, or any of a dozen other less idiotic plans to get him into their custody?

[Rahvin]

The "ship him on to the Gitmo" paranoia is really amusing. Not only would it be illegal to ship him to the US without approval from the UK but he would have an immunity period against extradition requests for a period should he be released.

In case you haven't noticed, the US government hasn't given much of a damn about laws these past several years.

But if the US is willing to violate laws to gain custody of Assange, why would they be more willing to violate the laws of Sweden than the laws of the UK? It bears the classic "conspiracy theory" hallmark of utilizing extraneous complexity to achieve a goal that could easily be accomplished without it.

[Mr Bean]

If they didn't care about laws, why not just kidnap Assange, extradite him directly to the US, or any of a dozen other less idiotic plans to get him into their custody?

Because he's in the United Kingdom one of our key three allies we don't screw with (The other two are Japan and South Korea), we've kidnapped people off the streets of Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Mexico and only sometimes did we bother asking the host country for permission. We are currently bombing the shit out of people in six countries we've not officially declare war on. We are preforming "signature strikes" in both Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

For those that don't know a "signature strike" is where we don't know who we are shooting at, we have no intel to indicate known terrorists we are hunting are at a location but we bomb it anyway because we have "reasonable suspicion" that the people there are going to be engaging in terrorist activities. Walking around with a gun outside and being an adult male with five or more friends at the same house have both been reasons to blow up houses in Yemen.

[Mange]

I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of sex crime law in particular and Swedish law in general. From what I'm gathering, these charges amount to an accusation of intentionally breaking or not using a condom when the victim instructed that he use protection. Is that accurate?

Yes, one of the women alleges that he didn't use a condom though instructed to do so.

Oh, and perhaps I should clarify something about being charged in Sweden as I think I and Mr Bean talked past each other a little. To make it brief and to clarify about where in the process a suspect in charged in Sweden:

* An alleged crime occurs
* The police starts an investigation which is led by a prosecutor
* A suspect is identified. The suspect isn't charged at this point, but a court can order the suspect to be detained if a conviction is likely to lead to a prison term of one year or more (a suspect may be detained for seven days on reasonable suspicion or fourteen days for probable cause after which a new hearing must be held) and he or she may obtain a public defender.
* The prosecutor (not a judge or court) evaluates the evidence following the investigation and if he or she finds that the evidence is enough for a conviction, then he or she prosecutes. If the prosecutor decides to prosecute, then the suspect is charged, not before. In the U.S. for example, the suspect is charged earlier in the process.

[CJvR]

I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of sex crime law in particular and Swedish law in general. From what I'm gathering, these charges amount to an accusation of intentionally breaking or not using a condom when the victim instructed that he use protection. Is that accurate?

Found this old Guardian report on the leaked investigation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... nge-sweden
& about the charges:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... ge-q-and-a

[Ziggy Stardust]

Because he's in the United Kingdom one of our key three allies we don't screw with (The other two are Japan and South Korea), we've kidnapped people off the streets of Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Mexico and only sometimes did we bother asking the host country for permission. We are currently bombing the shit out of people in six countries we've not officially declare war on. We are preforming "signature strikes" in both Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

Rahvin said it very well just a couple posts ago:

"But if the US is willing to violate laws to gain custody of Assange, why would they be more willing to violate the laws of Sweden than the laws of the UK? It bears the classic 'conspiracy theory' hallmark of utilizing extraneous complexity to achieve a goal that could easily be accomplished without it."

(Also, proof of all these other kidnappings, plz?)