HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Assange will be refused s...

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:41 AM

Assange will be refused safe passage even if Ecuador grants asylum - Foreign Office

Source: RT

The UK will do everything in its power to block Assange’s passage to Ecuador even if he is granted asylum by the nation’s government, officials said, claiming a legal obligation to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to Sweden.

UK authorities sparked a minor scandal when they announced they were prepared to raid the Ecuadorian embassy in London in order to apprehend Assange, effectively revoking the embassy’s diplomatic immunity.

"Giving asylum doesn't fundamentally change anything," said a spokesperson from the UK Foreign Office.

"We must be absolutely clear this means that should we receive a request for safe passage for Mr Assange, after granting asylum, this would be refused."

Read more: http://www.rt.com/news/assange-ecuador-uk-passage-823/



Reuters also reporting something similar:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-wikileaks-assange-britain-idUSBRE87F0B920120816

Britain says Assange asylum wouldn't change a thing

(Reuters) - Britain told Ecuador on Thursday that giving Julian Assange asylum would not change a thing and that it might still revoke the diplomatic status of Quito's embassy in London to allow the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder.

The Ecuadorean government, which said it would announce its decision on Assange's asylum request on Thursday at 7 a.m. (1200 GMT), said any attempt to remove the diplomatic status of its embassy would be considered a "hostile and intolerable act".

"It is too early to say when or if Britain will revoke the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status," a Foreign Office spokesman said by telephone.

"Giving asylum doesn't fundamentally change anything," the spokesman said, adding that Britain had a legal duty to extradite Assange to Sweden where he is wanted to stand trial for rape.

46 replies, 5054 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Assange will be refused safe passage even if Ecuador grants asylum - Foreign Office (Original post)
steve2470 Aug 2012 OP
bemildred Aug 2012 #1
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #2
xchrom Aug 2012 #3
msanthrope Aug 2012 #5
xchrom Aug 2012 #7
msanthrope Aug 2012 #12
Savannahmann Aug 2012 #4
Fuddnik Aug 2012 #9
hifiguy Aug 2012 #16
sweetapogee Aug 2012 #18
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #20
Fuddnik Aug 2012 #21
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #22
closeupready Aug 2012 #41
ikri Aug 2012 #44
magical thyme Aug 2012 #6
dipsydoodle Aug 2012 #8
steve2470 Aug 2012 #10
byeya Aug 2012 #11
tama Aug 2012 #13
tama Aug 2012 #14
xchrom Aug 2012 #15
ljm2002 Aug 2012 #17
coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #25
Enrique Aug 2012 #19
msanthrope Aug 2012 #23
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #26
msanthrope Aug 2012 #28
LiberalLovinLug Aug 2012 #30
msanthrope Aug 2012 #31
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #38
msanthrope Aug 2012 #39
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #42
Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #43
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #45
Enrique Aug 2012 #29
msanthrope Aug 2012 #32
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #35
msanthrope Aug 2012 #36
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply .
riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #37
randome Aug 2012 #24
Swagman Aug 2012 #33
randome Aug 2012 #34
JDPriestly Aug 2012 #46
mike_c Aug 2012 #27
closeupready Aug 2012 #40

Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:50 AM

1. My such a hissy fit.

You can just smell the fear and anger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:53 AM

2. Well everyone knew that would happen. Which is why Correa will most likely drag this out

for years if necessary. I think the Brits and the US found that out this week and are thoroughly frustrated, so they decided raid the Ecuadoran embassy or threaten to to try to intimidate them and Assange.

In a couple of years, the political situation in Europe may have changed. Hopefully France and Iceland are the beginning of a rejection of the Neocons and more sane governments will be in power. It's happened before for persecuted people who simply waited out the bad situations that drove them to seek asylum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:07 AM

3. so sweden has officially charged him with a crime?

my understanding is that this british poutrage is about not going to be interviewed again?

and have the women changed their story? it wasn't rape - according to them - or at least they didn't want to charge him with rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:26 AM

5. Have you read the findings of fact from the Belmarsh court?

I think it answers most of your questions. I am always surprised at how few Wikileaks supporters have read the actual legal determinants of the case.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:53 AM

7. What a crock. Your suppositions on what 'most'

Assange supporters read or don't read is bull shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:26 AM

12. The court findings are not available on Wikileaks. So I presume most

supporters don't know they exist.** I presume you have not read the court findings because of the nature and content of your questions. If you HAVE read the court findings, then I would expect you to be able to reference the parts that are unclear to you.


**Which is, I suspect, exactly how Mr. Assange wants it. After all, the testimony of his Swedish attorney did not go well for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:11 AM

4. Why would England risk an Act of War?

I mean think about it. It is an act of war to invade a Foreign Nation's accredited and recognized Embassy. To risk an act of war just to have a man questioned. Again, Assange hasn't been charged with a crime. He has been accused, but not legally charged. There are no official charges levied against him. The Swedish excuse which looks mighty thin is that they want him in Sweden for "questioning" by authorities. Despite the long tradition of investigators going to where the subject it to question him Sweden swears that they can only ask Assange questions in Sweden. That sounds fishy to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:05 AM

9. Because when you get right down to it, they're doing the US gov't bidding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #9)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:02 AM

16. Ding, ding, ding!

We have a winner. The Brits and the Swedes are behaving as they are at the behest of the US and for no other reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:35 AM

18. a better question to ask

why would Ecuador risk a long drawn out diplomatic fiasco with the UK, the US and several other large western governments? How is this in the best long term best interests of Ecuador?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sweetapogee (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:44 AM

20. It firmly establishes their position within the growing, powerful Latin American block

of countries - all of whom are fed up with our imperialism, exploitation and greed at their expense.

Even with Chavez so ill, the leadership of that block has been extremely adept at keeping a very strong presence on the international stage, in opposition to the US, the UK, the Euro etc.

I'm guessing more than a few Central and South American countries are supremely jealous of Correa's brilliance in this but one thing's for sure, they've got his back 110%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sweetapogee (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:57 AM

21. I don't see a downside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:13 AM

22. Agreed. Ecuador only stands to gain internationally, the UK's stunning move is the biggest question

in this entire event.

Assange must have something that has so deeply angered Correa which has stiffened his resolve. And he must also likewise have something that has so deeply angered the US, the UK (and Sweden?) that they've gone to these measures to silence him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:31 PM

41. London property values are likely to crater, as a result.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 03:59 PM

44. From what I've been told of Swedish law

Someone can't be charged in absentia so the interview that Sweden wants to conduct would be the point at which charges were laid. He's broken UK law by skipping bail, it really doesn't matter if he's innocent of the accusations or not he's violated his bail terms and is wanted in the UK for that crime. Sweden doesn't use the same law system as the UK and US so can't be expected to follow UK or US procedures.

The UK government haven't threatened to invade Ecuador's accredited and recognised embassy, they've pointed out that there are provisions in UK law to remove that recognition if the embassy isn't being used for diplomatic purposes, a provision put in place after the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher from the Libyan embassy in London.

It's also worth noting that Article 41 of the Vienna Convention:
Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.

If the Ecuadorian embassy isn't respecting British law then the UK government would be well within its rights to revoke the embassy accreditation and expel their ambassador.

There's been talk of Ecuador naming Assange a diplomat but diplomatic credentials are granted by the host country, not the embassy. Ecuador would have to apply to the UK government to make Assange a diplomat which would be rejected. Nor can they pack him in a cardboard box, declare it a diplomatic pouch and send him to the nearest airport. Diplomatic pouches are only respected when they actually contain documents related to diplomatic activity, they can be, and are, intercepted and opened such as when Italy intercepted 40 kilos of cocaine in a diplomatic pouch.

I'm fairly sure that it is pretty unusual for any country to allow people to leave another country by seeking asylum at their embassy. If you were wanted by the police in a foreign country and sought refuge at your own nation's embassy they'd almost always arrange for you to leave, perhaps with an embassy official to assure that you were being treated fairly but you'd get little direct support. When Chen Guangcheng sought protection at the US embassy in Beijing the US negotiated with China and he ended up leaving the protection of the embassy. It's worth adding that China demanded that the US apologise for the incident and never interfere in China's domestic matters in such way again, see Article 41 again - China would have been well within its rights to expel the US ambassador from China and suspend the embassy, similar to what the UK has told Ecuador and backed that up with the specific parts of UK law that would allow for the UK to do so.

You ask why England (the United Kingdom really) would risk an act of war? It wouldn't be an act of war since the embassy would just be a set of offices owned or rented by another country. You might also want to ask, why would Ecuador risk pissing off the UK, Sweden and potentially the whole European Union by giving asylum to Assange? Even if the UK government decides to look the other way and let Assange leave the country, what does Ecuador gain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:42 AM

6. I've held out this tiny bit of hope that weeks ago, while Ecuador was thinking things over

they slipped him out in the trunk of a car and he's already in Ecuador.

Too many spy thriller type movies I guess. But the hope persists. That if those fucktards revoke Ecuador's diplomatic status and goes marching in there, they find....nobody. Would serve them right.

Seriously. Because Sweden is unable to question Assange in England? Only in Sweden? About a cad with a bad condom charges that at least one accuser has recanted?

Rape, my ass. This was a set up from day 1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:01 AM

8. UK police arrest 3 in front of Ecuadorean Embassy

LONDON (AP) -- Scotland Yard says it has arrested a handful of people outside the Ecuadorean Embassy in London as supporters gather to defend WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

A police spokesman said three people have been arrested. He didn't give a reason, but an Associated Press reporter at the scene saw several people being dragged away from the embassy after refusing police orders to move across the street Thursday.

Police and protesters converged on the embassy in the upscale Knightsbridge neighborhood of London Wednesday night after the Ecuadorean government accused Britain of threatening to "assault" the mission if Assange weren't handed over.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WIKILEAKS_ASSANGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-16-06-47-45

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:20 AM

10. Ecuador to Let Assange Stay in Its Embassy

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html

CARACAS, Venezuela — The government of Ecuador is prepared to allow Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, to remain in its embassy in London indefinitely under a type of humanitarian protection, a government official said in the capital, Quito, on Wednesday night. Seeking asylum, Mr. Assange has been holed up for two months in the embassy, where the police scuffled with and arrested some of his supporters on Thursday.

Amid an escalating confrontation with Britain over Mr. Assange, Ecuadorean officials said they would announce the decision of the country’s president, Rafael Correa, on Thursday. The official said that the British government had made it clear it would not allow Mr. Assange to leave the country to travel to Ecuador, so even with a grant of asylum or similar protection, he would probably remain stuck in the embassy.

In advance of the announcement from Quito, supporters of Mr. Assange gathered outside the embassy in London on Thursday, refusing police orders to move across the road until officers bundled three of them into police vans and arrested them.

On Wednesday, Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, said that the British authorities had threatened to barge into the country’s embassy in London if officials did not hand over Mr. Assange. “Today we have received from the United Kingdom an explicit threat in writing that they could assault our embassy in London if Ecuador does not hand over Julian Assange,” Mr. Patiño said at a news conference in Quito, adding defiantly, “We are not a British colony.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:21 AM

11. The UK: The tory Peke that Squeaks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:30 AM

13. Live blog of Ecuador statement over Assange asylum:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:40 AM

14. Asylum is granted

 


13:38 BST
Asylum is granted

Ecuador is to grant political asylum to Julian Assange, says Patino.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:47 AM

15. good. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:25 AM

17. If G.B. goes so far as to revoke the embassy's status...

...so they can enter it, then I for one will be demonstrating in front of the nearest G.B. embassy. That would be an outrageous and unprecedented breach of international law and cannot be allowed to stand -- unless of course we are prepared for the world's legal underpinnings to change once and for all.

I say this as someone who recognizes that Assange is no saint. On the other hand, he has provided the means for people to reveal secrets that should be revealed -- not only war crimes by U.S. soldiers, but government corruption in several other countries as well.

Whatever one thinks of the Assange situation, revoking the embassy's status solely for the purpose of retrieving someone who was granted asylum there is illegal, immoral, untenable and intolerable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #17)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:38 AM

25. I hope Correa orders the Ecuadorean military to raze the British embassy in Quito and

 

arrest all of its UK citizens there, up to and including the ambassador.

If Britain is going to piss on 450+ years of diplomatic precedent, it should be prepared for the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:42 AM

19. all this because he didn't use a condom

makes perfect sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #19)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:17 AM

23. Not quite...here's the actual charges.....

1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf



Even of you think Assange innocent of these charges, do you deny that Sweden has the right to designate the acts described as crimes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:38 AM

26. Actually, they virtually dropped the charges. They were resurrected only after Wikileaks

exposed the Iraqi war crimes by the US. Mark Stephens, Assange’s lead lawyer in London, has repeatedly said, without providing details, that ‘a senior political figure’ worked to have the case reopened.

Assange stipulates that political interference in the case is confirmed by the decision of the Swedish prosecutors to drop the initial arrest warrant and to downgrade the investigation to one of ‘molestation’, a minor offense. Those decisions were reversed in late August when the chief state prosecutor, Marianne Ny, overruling a subordinate prosecutor in Stockholm, Eva Finne, restored the original allegations, saying that rape was the appropriate charge for the evidence on file with the prosecutors.

Furthermore, I've heard that at least one of the women has recanted.

Sweden's actions have certainly been highly suspicious and reek of a vendetta by the US. Their refusal to agree that they won't extradite Assange to the US if he returned to Sweden for questioning underscores (for me at least) that this isn't really about what happened in Sweden but is really about Wikileaks and the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 12:05 PM

28. Yes. A senior prosecutor can override the charging decisions of

a junior one.

I gave you the link to the proceedings at Belmarsh, where Mr. Assange was invited to prove his allegations regarding political motivation.

Perhaps you could cite an instance where any of your, or Mr. Assange's allegations was proved?

And again--those are the four charges. Which ones aren't crimes that Mr. Assange should be questioned about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 12:47 PM

30. How can he prove political motivation?

But its pretty obvious to the casual observer.

Why else would the UK be so heavy handed about not allowing Assange to travel to Ecuador over such a thin and low impact type of sexual "molestation" on two women who had consensual sex with him?

Its pretty obvious that if he goes to face charges in Sweden he will either get off, or be slapped with a minor punishment for screwing without a condom. Everyone knows that that is just a precursor to extradition to the US where Ecuador is concerned that he will face the death penalty, which is a barbaric medieval practice they do not believe in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #30)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 12:55 PM

31. Kindly tell me what is consensual or minor or 'low impact' about the acts alleged:

There are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant:
1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf


I really can't wait for you to tell me what is "low-impact" about rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #31)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:20 PM

38. Whatever the truth is about these allegations, they don't rise to the level of this kind of reaction

by the UK. This kind of international incident is unprecedented. The UK is basically willing to overthrow centuries of diplomatic law and tradition over these "allegations" which are by no means as clear as the court docs imply. The women did not want to press rape charges (in fact they bragged about sleeping with him, continued partying with him days later, have publicly said they don't believe Assange is violent nor do they fear him), the case was initially dropped but was resurrected after Wikileaks published US war crimes evidence.

This "outrage" is akin to Henry Hyde's "outrage" over Clinton's "perjury". The impeachment was about the perjury, the perjury, the perjury instead of what everyone on the planet could see - it was about taking down one of the most effective presidents on the face of the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #38)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:27 PM

39. What kind of reaction should 'rape' properly engender? nt



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #39)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:36 PM

42. THIS allegation with THIS particular man and Sweden's behavior on these alleged charges

and the UK's stunning diplomatic over-reaction...

... means my reaction to THIS episode is very, very different than usual.

But nice attempt to broadbrush. Silly but a good attempt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #30)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:45 PM

43. Ah, "thin and low-impact" rape.

Or as Whoopi Goldberg would say, "rape", but not "rape-rape".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:02 PM

45. How in the world is anyone going to prove that they had sex without a condom or,

if they did, that the sex was not consensual.

This boils down to he said, she said in the worst way.

What evidence other than the verbal testimony of each party can be entered?

I sympathize with victims of date rape, but these specific claims against Assange would be extremely difficult to prove. How could the women prove that this was not a misunderstanding? How could they prove that they did not mislead Assange? How could they prove that they did not consent?

The description of what is alleged to have happened here asks for the question: How did these adult women get into such an intimate position with Assange if they did not plan on having sex? And, if they planned to have sex, why didn't they check on the condom situation first?

And why are the women talking about this episode? It makes them look like fools in the eyes of this old lady.

I was warned about the dangers of allowing men to take liberties with me when I was very young. Apparently, these women, in spite of their maturity were quite willing partners to Assange's advances. Hmmm. The story stinks if you ask me.

I am reminded of the saying: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned -- and Assange scorned two of them. For that he must pay.

Assange should be more careful in his sex life, but so should these women in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 12:45 PM

29. the political aspect is hard to overlook

I doubt those charges you list are what caused the UK to threaten Ecuadorean sovereignty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #29)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:00 PM

32. I suspect what caused the UK to react in such a manner is British exceptionalism.

One does not go about whinging in the courts for two years and then disobey a court order. People take offense.

Also, Julian's kind of a wanker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:01 PM

35. Really?? You think the Brits are creating this international incident because of "exceptionalism"?

This unprecedented action in British history, especially with their history of hubris and arrogance demonstrated during their entire imperial career, and despite centuries of massive international conflicts, are only NOW drawing the line in the sand with Assange because of "exceptionalism"???

This is like Henry Hyde telling us its about the perjury (and not about taking down one of the most effective American presidents ever).

Talk about really reaching for some moral justification that's not consistent with reality....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #35)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:04 PM

36. Yes. Exceptionalism. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:15 PM

37. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #19)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:17 AM

24. All this because he refuses to take a DNA test and skipped bail.

Neither you nor I should be second-guessing the sexual assault charges. Victims do not become UN-victims simply because we like the man who -allegedly- assaulted them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #24)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:51 PM

33. has it entered your head that perhaps those who are backing Assange do so because

they believe in certain principals?..and do not merely 'like the man' or see him as a hero?

DNA test shot down hours ago.

There are no victims. They do not describe themselves as victims nor do they want charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swagman (Reply #33)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:56 PM

34. Fine. An STD test. Geeze, we've already been through this.

Why is he dodging an STD test?

You're right, describing the women as victims is my characterization. But they are plaintiffs who made accusations that have been supported by Sweden, Interpol and the entire U.K. appeals system.

Assange has done everything he can to avoid giving further testimony or agreeing to tests.

On edit: it WAS a DNA test that Sweden wanted him to take.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #34)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:05 PM

46. They want his DNA so that he can be pursued around the world

and never feel safe from those who would avenge his publications.

I wouldn't want anyone to take my DNA if I were Assange either. Assange has a lot of enemies with secret police working around the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:42 AM

27. those in power despise anyone who breaches the wall of state secrecy...

...behind which they sell out their nations' values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:30 PM

40. If the UK makes good on this, it will sink London's property values.

Part of the reason properties in London are so attractive (and hugely expensive) to foreign investors is that they know if they get caught up in some kind of scandal at home, they can always seek refuge in London, as that is traditionally a kind of "Swiss bank" offshore locale where refugees were NEVER harassed by third parties.

If that's changing, it reduces the value in holding property there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread