How dare they stick two fingers at the US ! Don't they know who's in charge !
The grubby part of this is the allogations that the Swedish justice system is being manipulated by America,
Evidence for this?
Evidence of the allogations? Google it dude. If there were evidence that the allogations were true - this would be a different discussion
We were talking about your request for evidence that [u]there were allogations[/u] that the Swedish justice system was being manipulated by the americans. Those allogations are being made pretty loudly. I'm not saying that she shouldn't answer the Swedish charges - I'm just saying that in light of these allogations (the ones about the US manipulating the Swedish Justuce system), the UK should think twice about storming an embassy in order to extradite him to Sweden
Wikileaks has no money now (when did they last release something that hit the headlines) and Assagne has spent all his trying to defend himself.
They/he never had much money. He's spent a lot of other people's money, not least of which was the £20k bail bonds form Jemima Khan and others that are now presumably forfeit.
Wo's the conspiracy theorist now then?
Eh?
How dare they stick two fingers at the US ! Don't they know who's in charge !
Well, quite. HMG would do well to remember this, and to tell the USD where to go once in a while too.
Andy
An Ecuadorian government spokesperson commenting on the threats by the British Government to enter the Embassy said:
“We are deeply shocked by British government’s threats against the sovereignty of the Ecuadorian Embassy and their suggestion that they may forcibly enter the embassy.
This is a clear breach of international law and the protocols set out in the Vienna Convention.
Throughout out the last 56 days Mr. Julian Assange has been in the Embassy, the Ecuadorian Government has acted honourably in all our attempts to seek a resolution to the situation. This stands in stark contrast to the escalation of the British Government today with their threats to breakdown the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Instead of threatening violence against the Ecuadorian Embassy the British Government should use its energy to find a peaceful resolution to this situation which we are aiming to achieve. “
Is it time for Hague's resignation?
Given his history of fleeing from justice, thats entirely to be expected, surely.
He left Sweden with their permission. How is that "fleeing from justice"?
He left Sweden with their permission. How is that "fleeing from justice"?
I think fleeing from justice refers to jumping bail in the UK.
Andy
[quote=ransos ]Given his history of fleeing from justice, thats entirely to be expected, surely.
He left Sweden with their permission. How is that "fleeing from justice"?
He did skip bail in the UK though.
I appreciate that the time for compromise has probably passed, but couldn't we simply guarantee safe passage for Assange to travel to the Ecuador embassy in Stockholm - where he would have the same privileges he now has but could be interviewed by the Swedish authorities?
It wouldn't make any difference - the embassy in Stockholm is part of Ecuador, not Sweden.
He did skip bail in the UK though.
Indeed, but the point is that he has never refused to answer the Swedish authority's questions about the allegations. That doesn't quite fit with portraying him as fleeing from justice.
Heard the interview with the Swedish lawyer acting for the women this morning on Radio 4. For a guy who is suposed to be part of a US attempt to pervert Swedish law he was doing a good job. Made me think perhaps he should answering some questions. Is there a report anywhere that explains what is going on without taking a side, I mean from the start?
edit - spelling.
Ecuador like other Latin American countries which are now no longer prepared to dance to the US's tune and insist on asserting their own sovereignty, has in place stringent measures to protect itself from covert US government activities.
The eternal totalitarian excuse for locking up journalists. Always in the pay of external enemies. Disgraceful stuff ernie.
Is that meant to be ironic?
mt - Member
Heard the interview with the Swedish lawyer acting for the women this morning on Radio 4. For a guy who is suposed to be part of a US attempt to pervert Swedish law he was doing a good job. Made me think perhaps he should answering some questions. Is there a report anywhere that explains what is going on without taking a side, I mean from the start?edit - spelling.
Confused as to who you think is doing a good job and who should answer questions?
[quote=pleaderwilliams ]Is that ironic?
mcboo says "are you capable of forming an argument"
Heard the interview with the Swedish lawyer acting for the women this morning on Radio 4. For a guy who is suposed to be part of a US attempt to pervert Swedish law he was doing a good job. Made me think perhaps he should answering some questions. Is there a report anywhere that explains what is going on without taking a side, I mean from the start?
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-there-should-be-no-immunity-for-assange-from-these-allegations-8053869.html ]This[/url] seems very balance (from today's Independent)
Andy
The Extradition Act 2003 is a one-sided scandal and we should all be writing to our elective representatives to ask when it will be reviewed.
There has been an independent review and it broadly gave the current arrangements a clean bill of health and found the UK/US treaty balanced. [url= http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/extradition-review?view=Binary ]Report is here[/url]
This seems very balance (from today's Independent)
Seriously?
(following poorly timed threats to storm their embassy, which apparently derailed a perfectly cordial negotiation process)
When would have been good for a [i]"well timed" threat to storm their embassy[/i]?
That indy article reads pretty balanced to me.
When would have been good for a "well timed" threat to storm their embassy?
Never. I should have said 'poorly considered'. Apart from upsetting the Ecuadoreans, it's something we could never actually do for fear of rendering our own embassies overseas unsafe; furthermore, the legislation (IIRC) applies to crimes committed on embassy premesis rather than fugitives taking refuge on them, and as such doesn't apply here.
Andy
Don't get me wrong, I broadly agree with the sentiment expressed in the Independent article, however, it's hardly a detailed, factual and balanced view of the case from the beginning, and is not presenting the many sides of the debate. It's an opinion piece.
Thanks ratherbeintobago.
Lifer - Good job in representing his clients and not looking like a US stooge. Made it seem like there was a case to answer. Hey but what do I really know hence the question. Am trying to keep an open mind even though I distrust anything governments do.
Interesting to hear that Sweden would not be able to extradite him to the US without our permission, and that they would not be able to extradite where there is the potential of a death penalty.
If this was indeed the case.... then I would be all in favour of him being packed-off to sweden to answer for the rape allogations.
However - I can't help feeling that if he goes to Sweden, the Americans will find a way to get hold of him.
That doesn't quite fit with portraying him as fleeing from justice.
He was bailed from a UK Court, undertaking a UK judical process, under terms that he then broke to seek 'political' refuge - I'd say it is reasonable to describe that as fleeing justice.
Personally, the fact that UK law and Swedish differ is irrelevant. The accusations against him allegedly occured in Sweden and it is their law that takes precedent.
Saying he was "fleeing from justice" is rather inflammatory, and without doubt a matter of opinion. "Fleeing from the British justice system" is probably a more accurate accusation.
mt - Member
Lifer - Good job in representing his clients and not looking like a US stooge. Made it seem like there was a case to answer. Hey but what do I really know hence the question. Am trying to keep an open mind even though I distrust anything governments do.
Gotcha.
From a moral point of view (if the info in the indy article are fact) then I believe that there is a case to answer. I cannot comment on the integrity of the "ladies", but the scenario described fits my definition of rape.
Why couldn't the Swedes make some sort of formal commitment - maybe to UN or euro court of human rights or somebody - that Assange will be returned to the embassy of Ecuador in Sweden once they've completed the rape "issue" ?
Of course that may include a period of imprisonment but I don't see why they couldn't undertake to do so.
For a laugh, they could ask the US to countersign it
There is a high degree of uncertainty for Assagne
- He can't for sure say that he's not guilty as its very difficult to prove one way or the other (consent is usually a verbal agreement)
- Sweden, the US and the UK won't give him any certatinty as to their actions
For the first part I'd suggest both he and the ladies in question know what happened. Proof is clearly not easy but given the article I read earlier suggested most cases like this are eventually dropped because of the burden of proof, it doesn't seem like a good reason to avoid Sweden
For the second I think you'll find both the UK and Sweden have given certainty (UK says "Off to Sweden with you" and Sweden says "We just want to talk about this a bit"). The US have made no comment and I'm sure even if they HAD made an on the record comment it could easily be reversed and most people would not take it as gospel.
Fair enough andy.
Assange is due to make a statement on Sunday "in front of the embassy".
Don't know how far outside, but maybe that will be the compromise to end this, effectively giving himself up.
He'll probably be arrested, extradited and questioned in Sweden on the charges he faces, whilst gaining a level of protection from political persecution now that he's had his asylum granted.
[quote=mk1fan ]Personally, the fact that UK law and Swedish differ is irrelevant. The accusations against him allegedly occured in Sweden and it is their law that takes precedent.Arre you saying this because the Swedes are nice and cuddly or would you also agree if it was some 3rd world country ruled by a despot?
LOL. That looks like a reputable source.....
Political prisoners and those of conscious are often fleeing justice.
perhaps we should discuss what we mean by justice?
I am sure that if the US and Sweden gave a categorical statement[legally binding] that he would never be extradited from there and that he would only face those charges and not be extradited he would be more mindful to go.
If he continued to refuse then we should be discussing him fleeing justice. I rather think he is fleeing from the fear of US extradition which the US could easily clear up. I shall not hold my breath for a comment from them
RE the Independent article it raises some good points but it barely touched on Assanges defence or the fact the charges were dropped and then restarted- this helps fuels views there was a political /other motive to the charges
Saying he was "fleeing from justice" is rather inflammatory,
Only to the overly sensitive. 
Why use 3 words when you can use 6 😀
If there is truth to the arguments outlined in the Indy article Assange has to go back to Sweden, it's a big risk (maybe) given the arguments around what the US may or may not do. If he does not then he'll always have the rapist tag brought up with the Wikileaks. It would a bold thing to doo.
Arre you saying this because the Swedes are nice and cuddly or would you also agree if it was some 3rd world country ruled by a despot?
Assuming that sentence for the alledged offence would not carry the death penalty or that the accused would not be facing torture.
If you travel to a country then you have to abide by their laws, whether you agree with them or not. Alcohol and the 'Middle East' would seem to be a simple example. If you then break the law - by choice or out of ignorance - then you still have to bear the responsibility/consequences for breaking it.
The arguement of 'We have different laws back home' is stupid arogance.
Well I hope he does give himself up and goes to sweden to answer questions and face any charges hopefully then he'll be allowed (after any legal punishment) to go about his business. Trouble is if they do pull a fast one and he ends up in the USA who's going to tell them to give him back? Pretty sure they have a reputation of ignoring the UN when it suits.
I doubt anyone thinks he should not go to Sweden but the way of getting him there is simple or the stumbling block.
US and Sweden say they wont extradite and he can then face the charges and then go home to Ecuador to await the US outcome - the committee has yet to rule after 18 mths as to what they want to do...of course that is not suspicious.
The US cannot sit on the fence and pretend that its [lack of] decision has no impact in his actions.
This is the situation that occurs when you get a track record of kidnapping people, hiding them in secret prisons and torturing them. If the US and UK had not done those things I'm sure Assange would be quite happy to go back to Sweden. I suspect that a Swedish prison (even assuming he was sent there) is nicer than a bedsit in the Ecuadoran embassy.
The Swedish authorities could interview him by email or video link perhaps?
The eternal totalitarian excuse for locking up journalists. Always in the pay of external enemies. Disgraceful stuff ernie.
Yes of course, a democratic society should freely allowed the US government to subvert and overthrow its government and if necessary establish a military dictatorship which does the US government's bidding.
Disgraceful stuff mcboo.
Fortunately throughout Latin American there is popular support in never returning to the days of Washington backed murderous dictatorships, and therefore the US now resorts to denouncing as totalitarian, democratically elected governments which are determined to defend themselves from US interference/imperialism.
The world has changed mcboo......all good stuff 🙂
[quote=DrJ ]This is the situation that occurs when you get a track record of kidnapping people, hiding them in secret prisons and torturing them. +1
The Swedish authorities could interview him by email or video link perhaps?
What if they want to arrest him as a result of the interview?
Here is Owen Jones in the Indy, poster boy of the young left.
People who do otherwise commendable work are capable of rape and other crimes. If presented with rape allegations, they must face them like anybody else, however otherwise worthy their past contributions. Now, these statements should be so self-evidently obvious, it is ludicrous that they need to be said. But the furore over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sadly makes it necessary. Although now granted political asylum by Ecuador, Assange is a rape suspect who skipped bail. Yet [b]some of his supporters have ended up making arguments that they would never dream of making about anybody else.[/b]For the avoidance of doubt, I'm a strong supporter of WikiLeaks, an organisation that has exposed some of the dark crevices of Western power. Great Powers have always dominated other peoples without their consent, but high levels of secrecy are needed to maintain acquiescence from their own citizens. The leaking of 400,000 documents about the Iraq war in October 2010, for example, exposed widespread torture and the deaths of thousands of civilians.
That Western governments preferably want WikiLeaks crushed is indisputable. Former US soldier Bradley Manning languished in solitary confinement for 11 months on suspicion of passing classified documents to WikiLeaks, leading to the UN's special rapporteur on torture to accuse the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. A US grand jury is currently examining evidence that might link Assange to Manning, though it is yet to report. Fears that Assange could end up extradited to the US – and what might happen to him there – are not without foundation.
But that does not mean Assange should be immune from very serious allegations in Sweden. Two women have both accused Assange of rape, and there have been repeated attempts by some of his supporters to discredit them. There have been suggestions that they are part of some kind of CIA honeytrap. The campaigning journalist John Pilger has described them as "concocted charges". But Assange's own lawyer, Ben Emmerson, does not dispute the sincerity of the accusers, arguing in court: "Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating the complainant, the genuineness of their feelings of regret, to trivialise their experience or to challenge whether they felt Assange's conduct was disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing at the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with."
But what has been particularly disturbing is the attempt by some supporters of Assange to claim that the allegations do not constitute rape. It is reminiscent of the campaign mounted by certain celebrities in defence of Roman Polanski, who was finally held in 2009 after fleeing arrest in the US more than 30 years previously over the alleged rape of a 13-year-old girl. We've heard this perverse argument that some rapes aren't really rape in Britain, too. Last year, Ken Clarke tried to distinguish between "date rape" and what he described as "serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman".
Let's be clear: rape is rape. Rape is having sex with someone without their consent. And Assange is clearly accused of rape. The allegation of one woman is that Assange had sex with her while she slept, without a condom. Assange's legal team claims that, while she immediately asked if he was wearing a condom and he answered not, she consented to continuing the encounter. But both women allegedly made their consent to sex contingent on Assange's use of a condom: unsurprisingly, given the huge potential risk to their health if he did not.
[b]Assange's lawyer described the allegations of the other woman in graphic detail in court. As he tried to penetrate her without a condom, she alleges, she repeatedly attempted to avoid penetration: her claim is that 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 try to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom".
Many of his supporters argued that this would not constitute rape according to English law, which is simply untrue. Our High Court ruled that: "It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did."[/b]
Again, his supporters query why Sweden has not charged Assange. But that is not how the Swedish legal system works. Defendants are not charged until very late into proceedings, and just before prosecution. He cannot be charged until he is arrested, which can only take place in Sweden. The country is a democracy with an independent legal system, and it is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights. [b]But Assange's supporters argue that, if he is sent to Sweden to face his allegations, he will be extradited to the US. This is particularly puzzling. As leading QC Francis FitzGibbon has pointed out, under Section 58 of Britain's Extradition Act, Sweden would have to gain the consent of the British Home Secretary first. As signatories of the ECHR, neither country can extradite a suspect to a country where they will face the death penalty or "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".[/b]
In any case, why not simply extradite him from Britain? As the American Civil Liberties Union points out, our extradition treaty with the US is "lopsided", because a suspect can be deported if "probable cause" is established, which is not the case the other way round. As a result, the organisation says, UK residents are at risk of "ill-founded" extradition requests to the US. That's why Gary McKinnon, an autistic Scotsman wanted over claims of hacking, and Richard O'Dwyer, a 24-year-old wanted for alleged copyright infringement, face extradition. Christopher Tappin, a 47-year-old businessman accused of selling batteries to Iran that could be used to manufacture missiles, has already been extradited.
[b]As legal expert David Allen Green put it to me: "The USA's best opportunity to extradite Assange is actually whilst he remains in the United Kingdom, a country very ready to grant extradition requests."[/b]
Ecuador's government has a great record of challenging the disastrous record of Western neo-liberalism, but its Foreign Secretary is wrong to describe the charges as "laughable" and "hilarious". Though its UK Embassy must be protected from any British Government attempt to attack its sovereignty, it is wrong to offer Assange political asylum. Assange should go to Sweden to face the allegations. That doesn't mean abandoning the struggle to hold Western governments to account, and to force them to be open about how they act in our name. But this is a struggle that has become tragically compromised by Assange.
