Assange diplomatic row spreads ahead of key statement (by Assange)

what one usually did was well walk thru walls.. behind the book case. So would this mean his first appearance won't be in UK.?? the cops there know this which is probably why they raided the embassy to make sure he was still inside. Doesn't pull a blind Chinese man who escapes except Assange can see...

Since Assange won't step foot out of the embassy. Duh!

maybe he'll speak from there?

Mozeltov!

Glorious leader?

or at least something like Skype. There wouldn't be any need for him to leave the embassy to make an "appearance".

Heck, it could even be a cellphone video. There's no big mystery here.

The Guardian (UK): Julian Assange case: Ecuador pushes for neighbours' support

New York Times: In Embassy Drama, Eyes of Police (and Public) Focus on Assange

... At the meeting, Britain denied it had threatened Ecuador, saying Ecuador had aired a private note that had been misunderstood out of context.

"Allegations that the United Kingdom was threatening Ecuador and was about to storm the embassy are without foundation," the British observer to the group told the council.

The United States argued that the matter should be handled between Ecuador and Britain. When Ecuador called for a meeting of regional foreign ministers next week, the U.S. was one of just three countries in the OAS that voted against it; 23 others, including Argentina, Mexico and Venezuela, voted to convene the meeting next Friday. Five countries abstained from the vote ...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/08/ecuador-pushes-to-protect-embassy-meeting-slated-for-next-week.html

So, Britain is unhappy that Ecuador "aired a private note". If the note was purely a friendly reminder of what the UK law says, then there is nothing inherently private about it, from Ecuador's perspective. If it was regarding secrets or if it was a statement of opinion, then there could be an argument for discretion. And airing it publicly certainly helped to clear up any misunderstandings, no?

As for the US, the idea that a third party (read, US) says that third parties (read, OAS) should stay out of it is just laughable on its face. Who the fuck are we to tell Ecuador's friends anything about this?

Personally, my suggestion would be that if the authorities in Sweden want to question Assange, they should ask Ecuador for permission to question him where he *is*. That should allow them to clear up any outstanding issues, and then there would be no reason for the UK to extradite him to Sweden, and he would be able to travel freely to Ecuador. Problem solved.

I don't know why you find that inappropriate: is it your view that OAS members at OAS meetings can never encourage OAS to avoid involvement in a matter and may only encourage OAS to seek involvement in any matter brought before OAS?

The US should have abstained due to obvious conflicts of interest. To suggest that the US, while trying desperately to have Assange brought here, honestly feels that this is a matter between the UK and Ecuador really is absurd.

Originally, it was a matter between Assange and certain people in Sweden. By fleeing to the UK, Assange managed to make it a matter also between Sweden and the UK. By fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy, Assange managed to make it a matter also between Ecuador and the UK. Then suddenly OAS is considering getting involved -- and you're complaining that the US took the position at OAS "Maybe we should all mind our own business here"?

Quote taken from the OP.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iX9wEjxY_yt4dDlpiMlIAkbyXzaQ?docId=CNG.8a005328729a147871bd52e3c5a2a5d7.661


That the US has any opposition to this group meeting is news.

If he had crossed a border into another country, would you say that the UK still had standing?

The UK only wants him so that he can be handed to the US. Their stated motives are disingenuous, and the Ecuadorans have every right to tell the UK to fuck off.

from the UK police

Had Assange fled into Quito's embassy in a lawless country, where his friends were being imprisoned and tortured for their political views, Quito would no doubt have a good humanitarian motive to shelter him. But in point of fact, he came to the UK voluntarily and has availed himself of their courts, without being molested, so the body of evidence strongly suggests he is in no instant danger of persecution in the UK

The UK, however, does intend to return him to Sweden, as he lost his court challenge to the Swedish warrant. Had Assange fled Sweden, because his friends there were being imprisoned and tortured for their political views, the UK would had a non-refoulement duty, and in the case of the UK refusing to recognize that non-refoulement duty, Quito would no doubt have a good humanitarian motive to shelter him from the UK's intent to return him to Sweden. But in point of fact, he went to the Sweden voluntarily and so enjoyed his time there, without incident, that he actually applied for residence in Sweden. Then, somehow, his sexual activities produced complaints to the police, and he decided it would be better to leave quickly than to discuss the matter with the police. Again, the body of evidence strongly suggests he will be in no instant danger of persecution in Sweden

The theory advanced by Assange, by his supporters, and by Ecuador, is several steps removed from the standard humanitarian theories: it is a speculation that

(1) the US might indict Assange;
(2) the US might next request his extradition from Sweden;
(3) Sweden might next extradite him to the US;
(4) the US might next torture him;
(5) the US might next try him for treason in front of a military tribunal;
(6) the US might next hold him in GITMO; and
(7) the US might finally put him to death

In the thinking of Assange, of his supporters, and of Ecuador, any evidence suggesting the plausibility of (1) also immediately proves the high probability of (4), (5), (6), and (7)

But the hypotheticals are piled too deeply here, to invoke standard humanitarian arguments

Perhaps Assange has a very very bad conscience about something he has done? Or perhaps somewhere in his secret roamings, he made the mistake of trying to blackmail some cheap thugs somewhere who are now threatening to apply a baseball bat to his kneecaps? Or perhaps he just really has some screws loose

means the US has disappeared people permanently when they get into US hands.....

How many "enemy combatants" are there at Gitmo? Doomed to decades in limbo... Or dumping inconvenient bodies over the open ocean - gee, we've done that too - during Obama's Admin no less.

The UK has never participated in extrajudicial rendition so I'm guessing they're a bit reluctant to do so now. Sweden has though.

to the Magna Carta. Grand Jury was traditionally desired as a mechanism ensuring that no one was prosecuted for serious crimes, unless there was good cause for the prosecution. The aim, of demanding Grand Jury indictment prior to prosecution, was simply to prevent government from engaging in one groundless prosecution after another, thus maliciously grinding away the defendant's resources and bringing him to ruin. Grand Jury has since vanished from most states that inherited the English common law, but it is enshrined in the US constitution as a prerequisite for prosecution for serious federal crimes. Grand Jury is traditionally secret, but it cannot find anyone guilty: the most it can do is recommend prosecution. Grand Jury is not the jury used to determine guilt or innocence in a trial: that is called Petit Jury. Petit Jury is the jury that hears the public trial evidence and decides whether to acquit or convict

The existence of Grand Jury investigating Wikileaks personal would only mean that there is an effort to determine whether these persons might have broken US laws and in particular which laws might have broken

The story of GITMO and extraordinary rendition during the Bush II era is indeed a disgusting one, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with Grand Jury: indictment by Grand Jury will be followed treatment in the ordinary legal system, that is, by trial by Petit Jury and acquittal or conviction. None of the persons imprisoned at Guantanamo were placed there as a result of Grand Jury indictment: they ended up there as a result of the lawless actions of the Bush II regime. Similarly, the extraordinary renditions of the Bush II era were not conducted under standard legal process: that is why they are called "extraordinary renditions" rather than being simply called "renditions" -- and none of these extraordinary renditions involved standard legal process, such as Grand Jury

The Council of Europe seemed to think the UK was heavily involved in the lawless "extrajudicial rendition" programs of the Bush II era. But whatever the UK's role is, that role is well-hidden behind the screen of the UK's Official Secrets Act. We know about the Swedish case because of Sweden's long history of freedom of the press

Assange will be renditioned or whatever term they use, and disappeared (er, no put into solitary confinement on suicide watch for years on end....). There are legal loopholes for all of it or the US will create one.

You appear to be delusional that the US still operates within the law.

They don't. Even Obama is impervious to the rule of law. Welcome to the real world.

to discuss anyone associated with Wikileaks?

If the country is completely lawless, there's no point to a Grand Jury. A Grand Jury, for example, would just be a needless inconvenience from the POV of a professional assassin

that might resemble the law, but are in no way shape or form related to the law. Same with Awlaki and his 16 yr old son who were assassinated. The extrajudicial justice is rationalized away in legalese that's meaningless but they trot it out nonetheless.

Make no mistake, the Grand Jury will label Assange a terrorist, or an enemy combatant or some other similarly useful term that's just egregious enough to pass muster with the masses while allowing a crime to occur when they bring him in (if they bring him in. So far he's been pretty tough to catch).

The frame is very simple here. Bad people (National Security and all that jazz) want US to git him. Good people (Freedom of press, transparency and end to crimes against humanity and planet and all that jazz) want him to stay free from US courts and prisons so that the sadistic perverts in US (and elsewhere) don't get their satisfaction.

More generally this is what Al Giordano's take on Occupy and etc. has taught me. There are loads of sadistic perverts in police, government and general public who get their hard on from hippies etc. anti-establishment types getting beaten, jailed, humiliated in courts etc. The first responsibility of good people is not to get caught and deny the sadistic perverts their satisfaction. If we want another world, it's our responsibility to stop feeding the needs of sadistic perverts. There's nothing honorable in aspiring to be a martyr tortured by the system. Cruel fact of the world is that people side with winners, losers who get caught by the system arouse just pity and terrorized fear from the well-meaning people (standard DU comments on police brutality) and sadistic pleasure from the bad people (standard freeper, police forum etc. commentary).

Thus my humanitarian argument goes: don't get caught by the bad guys. Don't feed the needs of sadistic perverts, don't feed the terrorized fears of well-meaning ordinary people, which in the end are two sides of the same coin.

and Sweden declined. Gee, what a surprise...

Not.

The whole point is not to question Assange but to get him into Swedish custody.

Ecuador has inserted themselves into a matter that does not involve them. Sweden was correct to tell them to fuck off.

I've been poking around teh Goggle and can't find any conditions except the obvious one - that any questioning would happen with Mr. Assange remaining inside the embassy. It could be conducted either in person or by video link. Sweden hasn't said why they declined the offer.

That doesn't seem unacceptable to me, though if the real point of the exercise is not the questioning but getting Assange into Swedish custody, I can see how the Swedes would find it "unacceptable". It's probably why they didn't want to go to England to question him even before he scarpered.

Regardless of their motive, the Swedes have every right to decline.

The point of the interview is to formally charge Assange and place him in custody, which they obviously cannot do from the embassy or London. It's a quirk of their legal system that such an interview must take place before charges are filed, but a combination of mistranslation, unfamiliarity with their justice system, obfuscation from Assange and his lawyers, and a fair amount of willful ignorance has led a lot of people to believe that the Swedes wanted to conduct a routine interview but are being unnaturally prissy about it for no reason.

If you google some of the BBC and Guardian reporting of the original extradition hearings, a lot of the case makes much more sense.

This one in particular covers the original extradition ruling: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12569462

Basically, the magistrate approved extradition on the grounds that:

1) The charges were legitimate. (in both the sense that they recognized the rape charges as criminal offenses and that it was not some sort of trumped-up charge to get at him for his political activities.)
2) The European Arrest Warrant had been issued for the purpose of prosecution and not merely questioning.
3) The prosecution had reached the point where in a common law system, charges would have already been filed.

It's an interesting case, and it's a shame that most of the threads about it around here are nothing but arguments about what the US may or may not do and pissing contests about whether certain posters are in the pocket of The Man.

if you really believe the interview is a "quirk of their legal system" and just a formality before charges are brought.

What would be the point in providing an opportunity for the accused to testify and share his view if not to make a fair and comprehensive assessment about the allegations? Why stick to this "golden rule" if it doesn't have any influence whatsoever on the prosecutor's decision to file charges?

No, the offer by Assange and Ecuador to let the interview take place elsewhere is serious and if it helps to convince the prosecution that no crime has occurred - which is very much in the realm of the possible, since, as we all know, the first prosecutor in charge came to this conclusion within a very short period of time - the entire matter can be brought to an end very quickly.

The English magistrate never considered whether the charges were "legitimate", that was not his task. He did not examine any material evidence of the case and had no means available to decide whether the case was reopened due to policital intrigues, a considerable amount of sophistry applied in interpreting witness testimony or whether the charges had no basis in reality at all.

As a baseline, I've never fled their jurisdiction in a criminal case and then jumped bail to avoid extradition into their custody while comparing them to Saudi Arabia. So there's at least one person out there who has less respect for their courts than I apparently do.

Take exception to the wording I used if you must - the point is that Swedish law works differently than common law. They don't want to try him in absentia, and the case cannot otherwise proceed until they can interview, charge and take him into custody. So an out-of-jurisdiction interview simply places things right back at the same impasse. Besides, since when are prosecuting attorneys in the habit of letting suspects dictate the terms of the procedure? Assange's offer is consistent with a legal strategy of objecting to the extradition on the grounds that he is wanted by the Swedish authorities for questioning instead of prosecution (since extradition for the former is invalid). Unfortunately for him, the British court disagreed.


No the British magistrate did not try the case. But one of the objections that Assange's legal team raised to the extradition warrant was that the offenses were not extraditable offenses, and the judge concluded that they were. Obviously, the weighing of testimony and evidence, and determination of guilt is a matter for the Swedish courts.

Of course they can interview him outside of the country. The point being, as I said, what he says may well lead to the closing of the case. If they still want to proceed, of course they can do this and try him in absentia.

The English magistrate examined the language used by the Swedish prosecutor and determined that the words used, like "molested" or "helpless state" implied extraditable offenses. He did not examine whether the witness testimony or the known facts actually lend themselves to such interpretation, which is what Assange's defense team had called into question. IOW the magistrate ignored the objections, but you and others here still take the Swedish prosecutor's summary as descriptions of facts in a "legal document" by a British court.

To make it perfectly clear: Unlike in normal extradition cases, where evidence of charges must be presented, the EAW requires that the prosecution in the country requesting the extradition is blindly trusted. If the Swedes tick "rape" in the form, then the Brits cannot ask why it is believed that rape has occurred and how, they have to extradite.

The EAW instead of Mutual Assistance has been "out of proportion", and Marianne Ny not organizing an interview inside a week after reopening the case is violation of rights of both the accusers and accused and due process. Lot's of other violations mentioned:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem

Under the circumstances.

so now Assange is in a Ecuadorian "jail" for the foreseeable future. If he steps out he is arrested.

I wonder what any of us would do in his shoes. I'd probably be right where he is now. Except of course I'm not - which says more about me than him.

so Assange can be extradited to Sweden.

I don't think it is in the best interest of America to extradite Assange.

"Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem also made it clear that the Swedish government had no legitimate reason to seek Assange's extradition when he testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate", because he could be easily questioned in the UK."
http://www.zcommunications.org/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador-is-right-to-stand-up-to-the-us-by-mark-weisbrot

Assange has a very real fear that once he is in Sweden, he'll be surrendered to the US. The US wants him dead or in a hole for the rest of his life.

Ecuador has every reason to respect that fear, and to work out an accomodation that is reasonable for all parties. Sweden does not lose any ground by questioning him where he is. In reality, it would bolster any charges for them to just move forward with it so they can make their argument for why they should return him.

He isn't a free agent, after all. He is in the custody of the government of Ecuador. Clearly, Sweden hasn't given them a compelling reason to give him up. And looking at the way that Sweden has handled this thing so far, their motives can surely be questioned.

Finally, Ecuador didn't insert themselves into anything. Assange went to their embassy, requested asylum, and made the case that he feared US rendition. What choice did they have but to consider his request?

It was the UK that blew this whole thing out of proportion, and that lends lot of credence to Assange's argument. Now that Assange is in the hands of Ecuador, the UK has zero standing in the matter. So why do they care so much?

the US did nothing for 2 years while Assange was in a country with a long history of cooperating with US law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Why is that?

So its not unprecedented.
Sweden renditioning a person to US to be tortured in Egypt is also not unprecedented.
Its clear to anyone with a brain why the pretex to get Assange on Swedish soil.

so why participate in a farce when they knew they wanted to arrested him but couldn't.

The issue resolved when Assange lost his extradition fight - he has no legal right to remain in England.

From the other thread, hack believes the government (and hack plural - hack likes to address themselves as "we") gets to strip a woman of her right to control her own authority, to make decisions about their bodies. He believes there will be 'clear evidence" of a crime that will supersede a woman's rights so I've asked him exactly what he means by "clear evidence" since obviously this is the crux of the matter with Sweden.

Would such evidence include being tied up, or hit with a whip? (BDSM). Or how about strangulation? (erotic asphyxiation). Rough sex? Gentle nudging against your lover's leg with your penis to provoke arousal? How about waking up your lover to make love? (is that really rape? Guess you get to decide, not the woman involved).

Really, why do you get to decide which activity is "rape" and what's "lovemaking"? Since you have decided there's a standard of 'clear evidence", go for it. Define "clear evidence" that entitles YOU to decide if that sexual activity is "rape" or consensual sex (and not the parties involved)?

I need to know what to stop doing so I don't run afoul of the new order...

since the US and their lapdogs make up the rules as they go along, or even ignore them completely.

which is what he faces if Sweden hands him over to the US.
Assange and his lawyers have agreed to surrender and go to Sweden to face the charges. All Sweden has to do is agree not to turn him over to US. A simple solution, if Sweden's intent is prosecution, and not a pretext for something else.

I suspect the US is happy with this turn of events. Avoids a nasty public extradition fight during the election while at the same time neutralizing Assange.

What you are suggesting has already happened.

It's clear that they just want Assange in custody--nothing to do with their floundering, absurd case about "sex crimes." Everything to do with "rendering" Assange to the U.S. for torture and possible execution for the crime of journalism. That's the fate, these days, of many journalists in U.S. client states, Honduras and Colombia. It was the fate of 14 journalists in Iraq killed by the U.S. military.* It makes you scream with laughter when the U.S. starts jabberwockying about "freedom of speech." We know they only mean freedom of corporate speech but in Iraq the U.S. didn't abide even by that. Corporate reporters were targeted and killed possibly as a "lesson" to all.

In any case, Assange's stated goal of open government is anathema to the privatized U.S. government and the Corporate Rulers and War Profiteers whom it serves. Sweden likely has dirty secrets itself and fears and loathes Assange for that reason. They've trumped up a case against him that is so lame they haven't brought any charges, in all this time. (The two women who accused him now say that he didn't rape them, he is not violent and they do not fear him.) All this international furor over a man wanted for questioning? And he offers to be questioned and they turn him down? Nope. The "case" means nothing to Sweden. They want CUSTODY of Assange--in order to turn him over to the U.S. That is why they refuse to question him.

You are right that that would resolve the matter. Ecuador is an honest negotiator in this situation. They've offered two solutions--Swedish prosecutors questioning Assange in the embassy, and Sweden promising not to extradite him to the U.S. Sweden has turned down both. And the U.K.'s response was to threaten to storm the embassy, in gross violation of international law and human rights protocols, to arrest Assange. Why? Why on earth would they do this--or even threaten it--over a journalist wanted for questioning on a minor matter? I think the U.K. promised the U.S. that they would "get" Assange and deliver him to the U.S. via Sweden and they are furious that their nasty little plot got foiled.

-------

*(http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm)

"I'm not threatening you, I'm just telling you I have a loaded gun in my hand pointing at you".

would the UK have issued such a dramatic threat to the US embassy ?

or visa versa ?

Undoubtedly the UK must be seen to impose it's laws but I believe this gunboat diplomacy would not be happening if it wasn't a "tinpot Banana Republic".

You don't need to be a fan of anyone to respond to an obvious setup by pointing out the facts.

They should know better than anyone whether or not they were violated. All they wanted was that Assange take a test for any STDs. But never did they accuse him of rape.

It was officials who decided otherwise and took the case out of their hands.