Assange granted asylum

[Mr Bean]

A few comments
1. Yes Crackpot I'll remember that, but I really hope your right because as I'll remind you again, the only time a government goes into other foreign governments embassy it's (And I don't want to say always because I know someones going to find the British did it in like 1907 or something) because they just declared war on that country and hope the embassy staff did not destroy the code books and secrets files fast enough.

2. The US has sent super secret Ninja's across the world to abduct people, when George W Bush was President we remembered that, now that it's President Obama we seem to have forgotten that fact and yes Obama has extraordinary renditioned a few people himself. The United States has people on payroll for exactly the role people are scoffing about and we use them regularly.

3. Alkaloid if he ends up in the United States he won't be given a trial, he will be interrogated daily and held for the remainder of his natural life. Thus is the fate of those who oppose the United states these days.

[Knife]

Thing is, the whole case in Swenden is so obviously bogus, it's one of the worst excuses ever for getting his hands on him so that they could give him to the US. The excuse "it's just for questioning" make the whole efford they put into it even more ridiculous. Why can't both countries just admit they want to collect points in Washington D.C. by doing their bidding?

Half the problem is it isn't. Assange absolutely should be questioned over the allegations.

Even if this whole farce was some super secret US CIA ultra ninja plot, the media would explode, the trial would make the OJ Simpson trial look like an episode of Judge Judy, and people would lose their awesome desk jobs in Washington over it.

The way it the revelation that the US was torturing information from often innocent people in extra judicial prisons was a huge deal and fundamentally altered the way the US government went about its business. People in the know imprisoned, presidents approving it impeached? That sort of thing?

I don't deal in absolutes. Did the US do some shitty things? Yes. Does the US still do some shitty things? Yes. Do some people hold the US up as perfect, awesome, blinding light of freedom? Yes. Doesn't make the opposite true either. The US is a country with skeletons in the closet. Doesn't mean they are behind a crappy Micheal Bay movie plot to get Assange and everyone clambering that it is has zero evidence to point to. Saying 'hey they did crappy thing A over here, so there is reason to believe that they would do this' is not evidence. All countries do shitty things, but it isn't a reason to subscribe to conspiracy shit.

[Knife]

A few comments
1. Yes Crackpot I'll remember that, but I really hope your right because as I'll remind you again, the only time a government goes into other foreign governments embassy it's (And I don't want to say always because I know someones going to find the British did it in like 1907 or something) because they just declared war on that country and hope the embassy staff did not destroy the code books and secrets files fast enough.

I won't argue this point other than to say it was over a 100 years ago.

2. The US has sent super secret Ninja's across the world to abduct people, when George W Bush was President we remembered that, now that it's President Obama we seem to have forgotten that fact and yes Obama has extraordinary renditioned a few people himself. The United States has people on payroll for exactly the role people are scoffing about and we use them regularly.

Legal or illegal aside, snatching supposed terrorist bad guy #36 with the only ones missing him is his fellows in the bad-cave AB1001 is a bit different than snatching political adversary #1032 with thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of supporters with similar political leanings across the country if not world, does have it's differences.

To be fair, I'm not exactly sure where I stand on extraordinary rendition. There is obviously a line there, just not sure where the line goes in my personal beliefs.

3. Alkaloid if he ends up in the United States he won't be given a trial, he will be interrogated daily and held for the remainder of his natural life. Thus is the fate of those who oppose the United states these days.

Yeah, sure. Like those other folks......seriously, the guy has a media profile of a superstar. He isn't going to disappear into a CIA prison.

[Mr Bean]

Yeah, sure. Like those other folks......seriously, the guy has a media profile of a superstar. He isn't going to disappear into a CIA prison.

What media profile? Give me six months, don't let anyone speak to him, hold him in a location impossible for most protestors to get to (Like a military brig on one of the larger bases or Gitmo itself) and everyone will forgot about him. He'd not be the first journalist we held for a decade.

[Knife]

Yeah, sure. Like those other folks......seriously, the guy has a media profile of a superstar. He isn't going to disappear into a CIA prison.

What media profile? Give me six months, don't let anyone speak to him, hold him in a location impossible for most protestors to get to (Like a military brig on one of the larger bases or Gitmo itself) and everyone will forgot about him. He'd not be the first journalist we held for a decade.

To be brutally blunt, for what purpose. Sure, the US has the capacity to do that, but lacks a reason. Petty revenge is not worth it. Heads would roll if anyone, and I mean anyone, found out about it. Anyone with the power to 'authorize' this would be one of the ones who would be shit canned and brought up on charges, if not here then around the world. We already have his 'source', there is no reason do go off the deep end for the USA.

[Alkaloid]

The US media would love a show trial. If hes guilty, MSNBC and their viewers will go ape shit. If Not guilty, Fox and their viewers will go ape shit. Either way people will watch, and both sides will be convinced the issue not going their way is biased. Welcome to the world of partisan broadcasting. The issue is there is no way for a trial for Assange in the US to be fair. The well is well and truly poisoned. We do know that at least elements of the government want one and are trying to find ways to bend laws to get one.

I agree, he should go to Sweden and be questioned over the sexual assault claims. I also think that he has good reason to be suspicious of the US and Swedens motives. The problem lies in the fact that those to issues do not exist in isolation from each other.

I don't deal in absolutes. Did the US do some shitty things? Yes. Does the US still do some shitty things? Yes. Do some people hold the US up as perfect, awesome, blinding light of freedom? Yes. Doesn't make the opposite true either. The US is a country with skeletons in the closet. Doesn't mean they are behind a crappy Micheal Bay movie plot to get Assange and everyone clambering that it is has zero evidence to point to. Saying 'hey they did crappy thing A over here, so there is reason to believe that they would do this' is not evidence. All countries do shitty things, but it isn't a reason to subscribe to conspiracy shit.

Neither do I. He may go to Sweden, answer some questions and go on his merry way. He also may not. Going by recent history I'm not sure which is more likely, but I don't think running and hiding when you damn well know that some of the people who did nasty thing A over here is stupid, especially if you don't have good reason to fear them doing nasty thing A again after they faced no consequences for it last time.

[Mr Bean]

To be brutally blunt, for what purpose. Sure, the US has the capacity to do that, but lacks a reason. Petty revenge is not worth it. Heads would roll if anyone, and I mean anyone, found out about it. Anyone with the power to 'authorize' this would be one of the ones who would be shit canned and brought up on charges, if not here then around the world. We already have his 'source', there is no reason do go off the deep end for the USA.

Assange knows things to be blunt, Bradly Manning was not a single source of all the stuff to end up on Wikileaks. The American government hates the site with a passion and has been treating it like a hostile intelligence agency since Collateral Murder video was released. There are (funny enough curtsy of other as yet unknown sources) leaked memos release by Wikileaks detailing efforts against them and off the record conversations reported by the beltway media is that the Intelligence agency's has Wiki-leaks third on it's list of threats after China and Russia of organizations that threaten their work.

[Alkaloid]

What media profile? Give me six months, don't let anyone speak to him, hold him in a location impossible for most protestors to get to (Like a military brig on one of the larger bases or Gitmo itself) and everyone will forgot about him. He'd not be the first journalist we held for a decade.

That won't happen, because he does have a media profile. No one spoke to Manning for a long time, they sure as hell still spoke about him. You would have to come up with stopping every news station reporting or mentioning him at all, and even then you would have years where mentioning him would get a reaction.

[Mange]

Thing is, the whole case in Swenden is so obviously bogus, it's one of the worst excuses ever for getting his hands on him so that they could give him to the US.

Ridiculous. The Swedish courts are of course independent from the government (as in most every other democracies) and there's no legal way to extradite him to the United States. As I mentioned in the other thread, an extradition from Sweden to a third country of a foreign citizen can only occur if a) the act for which the person is wanted for is criminal in Sweden ("dubbel straffbarhet"="dual criminality") and for which the prison term is one year or more and b) won't occur if the person risks the death penalty or be the subject of cruel and/or degrading treatment. It's not illegal for a third party to distribute or publish classified information in Sweden. Also, the UK would have to approve an extradition to a third country (and the European Court of Justice would surely have something to say).

Also, Sweden doesn't have anything remotely similar to the UK Extradition Act of 2003 which allows the U.S. to extradite British citizens and foreign nationals on British soil on reasonable suspicion alone.

The excuse "it's just for questioning" make the whole efford they put into it even more ridiculous.

That's the standard in Sweden. To "charge" someone with a crime doesn't really exist in the judicial system and there's no grand jury or judge who indicts. With more serious crimes, it's the prosecutor who leads the preliminary investigation (which of course includes questioning the suspect) and if the prosecutor believes that the evidence found against the suspect during the preliminary investigation shows that the suspect is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and thus enough to secure a conviction, then the prosecutor takes it to court (whereby the suspect becomes the defendant). Then it's of course up to the court to try the evidence.

The prosecutor can of course also close the preliminary investigation if he or she finds that for example no crime has been committed or if it can't be proven that a crime has been committed.

Depending on the level of suspicion and the severity of the crime (that the crime renders a prison sentence of one year or more and of course if there's a flight risk or risk that the suspect may destroy evidence), a suspect may be remanded during the preliminary investigation. If the suspect is remanded, then the prosecutor must bring the case to court within two weeks (though the prosecutor can ask for a respite) and the trial must begin no later than two weeks after the case has been filed. A suspect may usually not be remanded for more than two weeks (or one week on the lower level of suspicion) after which a new remand hearing must be held if the prosecutor deems it necessary that the suspect should remain in custody.

I'm not a lawyer, but my sincere belief is that if he had gone to Sweden, then everything would've been over a long time ago. It's word against word with no physical evidence (at least none that has been mentioned in the media) and the prosecutor would have closed the investigation shortly after the questioning.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Assange knows things to be blunt, Bradly Manning was not a single source of all the stuff to end up on Wikileaks. The American government hates the site with a passion and has been treating it like a hostile intelligence agency since Collateral Murder video was released. There are (funny enough curtsy of other as yet unknown sources) leaked memos release by Wikileaks detailing efforts against them and off the record conversations reported by the beltway media is that the Intelligence agency's has Wiki-leaks third on it's list of threats after China and Russia of organizations that threaten their work.

So you don't think an intelligence agency should be at all concerned over an organization with the perennial ability to leak classified information? They should just shrug and move on with their day?

I am not saying that they should, or that they will, go super-secret-Bourne-ManchurianCandidate-black-helicopter-ninja on Assange, but acting like an intelligence agency paying attention to a potential security breach is a hallmark of a grand conspiracy is ridiculous. It's their fucking job to pay attention to that kind of thing. You'd have a case if a memo was leaked saying, "Let's kill this Assange guy," but all the memos say is "Hey, we should keep an eye on this."

[Mr Bean]

Excuse me Ziggy why is it a secret conspiracy if they are talking to reporters about how they treat Wikileaks?

[Zaune]

Am I the only person who is really rather embarrassed to be associated with the British government right now? I mean even they have to realise that nothing Assange has committed or abetted could do as much damage to Britain -or by extension the United States- as actually attempting to carry this threat out. I don't know what kind of security forces Ecuador maintains at their embassy in London, but there must be automatic rifles and grenades at the very least, possibly even some squad machine guns and a couple of RPG-7s and MANPAD systems. We'd need the bloody army to get Assange out of there! And then if we actually did it we'd have no diplomatic relations left with half the world, not to mention our embassy in Quito getting mortar rounds dropped on it in retaliation.

[Mr Bean]

Ecuador does not have a walled compound Zaune. They are a street front embassy in a turn of the century style row house. Your talking maybe tweve rooms and nineteen to thirty people with about six security personnel. I'd question if they had anything above side arms and shotguns inside. It's Ecuador, a four tier military power.

[Magis]

Can any of the conspiracy theory nutjobs in this thread offer even one logical argument that supports the idea that it would be easier for the USA to get Assange via Sweden than from the UK directly? I recall there being prior threads discussing this in which all the conspiracy loons were jumping from one logical fallacy to the next.

Summary:
-The US hasn't asked for him.
-There's no indication that the US has any plans or intentions to ask for him.
-If the US did want him, it would surely be easier to get him from UK directly, which they had plenty of opportunity to do before Assange ran like a little bitch into the embassy.
-By hiding in the embassy, Assange made himself a criminal by breaking his bail conditions and he forfeited the money that his supporters put up, which makes him a liar and an asshole.
-The reason the Swedes want him has nothing to do with Wikileaks.
-The assault claims of the two women might be bogus but that's for actual courts to decide; Assange shouldn't get a pass just because he leaked some documents.
-Diplomatic asylum isn't recognized in principle by the UK, and according to the International Court of Justice, granting diplomatic asylum constitutes a breach of the host nation's sovereignty.
-By granting diplomatic asylum, the embassy breached a UK law that says the embassy land “ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises” if “a state ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission”.
-The UK has a treaty obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden.

Hmm... I'm not sure how either the UK or Sweden can be in the wrong here.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Excuse me Ziggy why is it a secret conspiracy if they are talking to reporters about how they treat Wikileaks?

Read my post again and try to understand it, or show the memo where they told reporters they are trying to kill/abduct/torture/whatever Assange. So far as I can tell, the only information these reporters have is that the intelligence agencies are monitoring Wikileaks and considering them a security threat ... which, again, is not surprising, because that's their fucking job.

[Vympel]

Ridiculous. The Swedish courts are of course independent from the government (as in most every other democracies) and there's no legal way to extradite him to the United States. As I mentioned in the other thread, an extradition from Sweden to a third country of a foreign citizen can only occur if a) the act for which the person is wanted for is criminal in Sweden ("dubbel straffbarhet"="dual criminality") and for which the prison term is one year or more and b) won't occur if the person risks the death penalty or be the subject of cruel and/or degrading treatment. It's not illegal for a third party to distribute or publish classified information in Sweden. Also, the UK would have to approve an extradition to a third country (and the European Court of Justice would surely have something to say).

That's easily circumvented - its not like Assange can only be charged with the crime of disseminating classified US info. Charge him with say, computer crime. *ding* Turkey's done.

[mr friendly guy]

Why don't the US just formally say they don't want to extradite Assange for wikileaks related stuff. Wouldn't this be the end of the problem?

[Block]

Why don't the US just formally say they don't want to extradite Assange for wikileaks related stuff. Wouldn't this be the end of the problem?

That'd just be further proof that we do.

[mr friendly guy]

Why don't the US just formally say they don't want to extradite Assange for wikileaks related stuff. Wouldn't this be the end of the problem?

That'd just be further proof that we do.

No. Proof that the US wants Assange would be they still try to extradite him after saying they don't. Assange's lawyer has already stated Assange is willing to go to Sweden if a guarantee is made that he will not be extradited. There is no guarantee that the US wouldn't back out of its word, but with the publicity its most probably as good a promise Assange is going to get.

[Beowulf]

For reference: the Ecuadorian Embassy

[Grumman]

Why don't the US just formally say they don't want to extradite Assange for wikileaks related stuff. Wouldn't this be the end of the problem?

...no, it wouldn't. If there's anybody in the world who isn't going to take the US at its word that it's not going to try and disappear someone, it's Julian Assange. Hell, it's only been three months since he last posted evidence about the 150 people at Gitmo the US knows are innocent, but are keeping locked up anyway.

[Thanas]

Summary:
-The US hasn't asked for him.
-There's no indication that the US has any plans or intentions to ask for him.

I do think Assange should stand trial in sweden and I do trust the swedish courts to render a fair and impartial verdict. Even if the evidence is he said she said, I do think there is enough to start proceedings.

However, the above is wrong.

The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama's party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange's lifelong imprisonment, [Joe Biden] called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination.

For several reasons, Assange has long feared that the US would be able to coerce Sweden into handing him over far more easily than if he were in Britain. For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying.

For another, that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).

[K. A. Pital]

A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).

That's some stellar record right there. I thought that was mainly the habit of Eastern European nations to serve the US as rendition points, but naah.

[PeZook]

-By granting diplomatic asylum, the embassy breached a UK law that says the embassy land “ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises” if “a state ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission”.

They still can't do anything about it without laying hands on members of Ecuador's diplomatic staff, who are explicitly afforded immunity entirely separately from the premises of the mission.

Furthermore, means of transportation are ALSO assigned immunity from searches in a separate article of the convention on diplomat relations.

And finally, the wording of the above UK law doesn't mean the embassy is no longer an embassy the moment its staff does something which violates international law ; It ceases to be an embassy when the mission is shut down. Has Ecuador stopped performing regular diplomatic tasks with the land?

Either way, while I doubt Ecuador's security staff would start shooting at British police trying to enter the embassy, raiding it would be a clear violation of the Vienna convention and thus open a massive can of worms for British embassies across the globe.

[sciguy]

Assange almost certainly should be questioned, maybe go to trial. If he raped anyone I have no idea...

He was already questioned about the rape accusation. After his questioning, the Swedish prosecutor said that there wasn't enough evidence to support charges, and that he was free to leave the countty. He applied for a residence permit to stay in Sweden, but the Swedish government denied it, so he left. Several weeks later (and two days after the big dump of diplomatic cables were released on wikileaks) the Swedes sent out an interpol notice saying that he was wanted for (more) questioning and likely charges. Exactly why the Swedish prosecutor switched from "not enough evidence, free to go" to issuing an interpol detention request has not been explained. If new evidence has come to light, the Swedes have not shared it with anyone.