Swedish authorities turn down offer to question Assange in Ecuadorian embassy
Ecuador wants to prevent Julian Assange's extradition to Sweden because it is disappointed that the Scandinavian country has turned down an offer to question the WikiLeaks founder in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, a minister said on Wednesday.
Assange has been holed up in Ecuador's Embassy in London for six weeks as he awaits a decision on his asylum request by the leftist government of Rafael Correa.
The Australian anti-secrecy campaigner, who angered Washington in 2010 when his WikiLeaks website published secret US diplomatic cables, is wanted for questioning in Sweden over sex crime allegations. He fears that if he is sent to Sweden he could be bundled off to the United States.
Ecuador has long said that it will take as long as needed to make a thorough analysis of Assange's asylum request before making a decision. Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño on Monday vowed to wait until the end of the London Olympic Games on Aug. 12 to announce a decision.
He said Ecuador had invited Swedish authorities to question Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, which could give the former computer hacker a chance to avoid extradition to Sweden.
But following a meeting with Correa on Wednesday Patiño said he had “unofficially” learned that Sweden had turned down the offer. He said he was disappointed about Sweden's decision because it “makes the situation more complicated.”
“This makes it more difficult for us to make a decision that would mean that Mr. Assange would have to travel to Sweden,” Patiño told reporters outside the presidential palace.
Patiño did not say if Ecuador is now more inclined to grant political asylum to Assange, but said his country's decision will seek to protect Assange's life and his right to freedom.
“This will be a factor to consider in the decision we have to make. Had we had a positive answer from the Swedish government then we would be considering taking a different kind of decision,” Patiño said.
Sweden's foreign ministry declined to comment, but a Swedish prosecution authority spokesman said prosecutor Marianne Nyh had turned down an offer to interrogate Assange in Ecuador's Embassy in London.
Suggested Stories
-
Jun 17th 2013
Assange prepared to remain in Ecuadorean embassy in London another five years
-
Jun 17th 2013
Brazilian protestors clash over excessive expenditure in World Cup stadiums
-
Jun 14th 2013
Nicaragua approves transoceanic canal to rival with Panama and to be built by Hong Kong company
-
Jun 14th 2013
Chile and UK hold annual round of defense talks in London
45 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Do they side with a friend accused of sex crimes or lose face by bowing to the pressure of world powers.
I'm guessing they will give him asylum but have no way of getting him out of the country. Painters and decorators required at the embassy soon. I wonder what colour he'll chose to upgrade his self imposed cell to?
Nobody really knows whether this is a grand plan to extradite him to the USA or not - but there are plenty of legal procedures to ensure that it is done lawfully. They can hardly use the exraordinary rendition process in this case.
Even Jemima Khan is unhappy about his latest actions and she was one of his biggest supporters. People need to discern between Wikileaks and Julian Assange. They are not one and the same.
Absolutely. The people that worked with him at Wikileaks can't stand him.
Nobody really knows whether this is a grand plan to extradite him to the USA
If there is maybe Wikileaks could leak it.
People need to discern between Wikileaks and Julian Assange.
You are absolutely right.
There is no grand plan to extradite him to the US, its his rather farcical excuse to prevent him being held to account for depraved sexual deviance in Sweden, the man is a coward of the highest order like that kiddy fiddler Roman Polanski.
Why would he fear being extradited from Sweden which has no extradition treaty with the US, rather than the UK which does have an extradition treaty, and anyway the US has pressed no charges and doesn't intend to since he committed no crime releasing those files, and he certainly won't be executed as he pathetically claims, Bradley Manning the US Military intelligence operator who breached national security and oath of allegiance to the US and gave that shower of shites the files in the first place is only facing a 25 year stint in jail...which will probably be reduced to 5 years.
He made his beed........now it's time to lay in it to see if it's as comfortable as he had planned it to be.
As to his “fear” of extradition to the United States? Smoke and mirrors. Israel has already proved, more than once, that there is no real problem in abducting someone and either spiriting them out of a country or executing them in situ. The FACT is that if the U.S. wanted Assange, they'd already have him. And if they wanted him dead, he'd already be dead.
Bottom line? Assange IS GUILTY of the offences Sweden is investigating. And he's a COWARD for not facing justice. And there's every chance he'll be running and hiding for years.
I just want the slimeball out of Britain. He's contaminating our air!
He should grow a beard, convert to islam and preach hate of everything Swedish from the embassy front window.
Then he could claim that he wouldn’t receive a fair trial, hence never be extradited.
Reality TV solution:
Cage fight: Assange vs Hamid Karzai – loser gets a one way ticket to Guantanamo bay.
The reality tv solution....that was funny.
Why did Sweden refuse to question him in the Embassy?
Doesn't anyone find that suspicious.?
if Sweden promises not to send him to the US, then he should go to Sweden to answer the charges.
Have any of you wondered why Sweden will not make that promise?
He has every right to fear the US justice system.
Do any of you actually know what goes on in American prisons?
No risk for you people if he ends up in a US prison.
What will you say then? Oh l was wrong! Then forget about him, while he spends the rest of his life in a wild jungle hell-hole.
And for what? Publishing cables that probably shouldn't have been sent anyway.
Do you remember what the US said about our soldiers in lraq?
Wasn't very complimentry, was it? And we are their staunchest ally.
British lads being killed, helping the Americans & they're bad mouthing us in private.
Can't stand people putting the boot into someone when they're down.
“Judge not, lest ye be judged”.
Sweden is a sovereign nation and has the right to question him in their own jurisdiction.
The federal government's legal system virtually never puts to death people for espionage. The world does not seem to understand the term United States and each are sovereign. ANd most importantly, accused (which he has not been nor even wanted in the USA) has rights built into the constitution. He is also judged by a jury, not judges. The to often complaint here in the United States is that criminals have too many rights. So unless you experience the judicial system of the United States from either a sovereign state or the federal government, your empty points are invalid.
Most importantly, if he did not want to end hs life as he knws it, he should not have published classified documents. While some were plain old embarrassingly dumb, others were military positions.
And of all places for him to go, were the president is currently limiting publicity only to friendly media outlets.......such freedom......lol
It would be much easier for the US to extradite him from the UK than from Sweden. The Uk has signed up to a pretty dubious extradition treaty with the US, one that all UK citizens should question. If the US wanted him, they would just issue an extradition request. Why wait till he is in Sweden to issue such a request?
Wikileaks does the world a big favour. Governments / organisations have the right to keep secrets, but it is healthy that individuals in those organisations keep in mind that they might be judged one day for what they do.
They did the US a favour too with the cable leaks. They showed that rather than a plotting to overthrow governments, the US ambassadors are just doing what they are supposed to do.
#3 We agree on something, great =)
#5 Suppose you met them on another of your Argentine trips! Even if true that doesn't mean he has no rights of course!
#9 Maybe that outcome becomes more likely the more solidarity he gets from world public opinion and progressive governments like Ecuador, as it would represent a big climedown from what the current plan seems to be
We have already established that your moral code permits corruption when perpetrated by left wing politicians.
Now we can add that rape charges may be waived if the alleged perpetrator is perceived to be an enemy of the US.
Answer me one question: Why would the US want him in Sweden before commencing extradition proceedings, when the US has a fast-track extradition agreement with the UK? Why?
Yes as a matter of fact, l have been inside a US prison, as a visitor.
l was visiting a fellow countrywoman, who had been wrongly imprisoned.
She told me, & l believe her, of what she endured.
That is all l will say on that particular case.
Now, Captain Poppy, have YOU been inside a US prison?
Do YOU know the conditions there?
Anyway, this is neither here nor there.
lts always easy to kill the messenger.
l believe that he has done the world a service by publishing those cables.
lf your government didn't want others to know what it thought of them,
why they should never have sent the cables.
(especially about its CLOSE Allies)
You won't support us on the Falklands, tell me why we have to support you in Afghanistan?
Bring our boys & girls home, we need them in the Falklands.
lf the Americans want an empire, let them win it themselves.
We won't support you on the Falklands because they are not yours.
And lraq was not yours, yet you looted it.
And Afghanistan is not yours either, you haven't looted it yet.
But thats coming.
lf as you admit, you have never been inside a US prison then you don't know what you are talking about.
Being sarcastic about your prison population is not constructive to this discussion.
You have the highest percentage in the world of people in prison.
Are Americans that much more criminal than anyone else?
l dont think so. ls there something wrong with your society, or maybe the prison system is a lucrative business for some?
l know that some of you don't support us on the Falklands.
You hold the high moral ground & believe in doing the right thing.
So when do you intend returning California, Arizona,New Mexico & Texas to Mexico? Sometime soon?
We've been in the Falklands(which we claimed in 1765, when you were still a collection of British colonies on the east coast)since 1833.
lf we have to get out, then so do you.
l'm sure Mexico will be delighted that your country is doing the right thing.
As I say about the Falklands, Mexico lost that land in war. 2nd place gets no prizes, besides, if they really want it, they can consult with Argentina on how in conquer and invade like Argentina did in the Falklands.
Correct me if I am wrong, I believe Argentina turned 200 in 2010. My math takes that birth back to 1810. 1765, Argentina did not exist. Prior to that you were, as you phrase, a collection of colonies. Unless KFC is re-writing that history.
Hey, Cap'n, l think that you should re-read what you have just posted.
lt doesn't make a lot of sense.
Anyway, my argument is not with your country.
lt is with our belligerent, aggressive neighbour to the west.
Peace
l know that you're American, you said so.
Do you deny that the USA, looted lraq?
They did so. Your country sold lraq's oil when they were in occupation.
l did not accuse you of looting Afghanistan, yet.
l do not mean you, personally. l mean your country.
The self-appointed Policeman of the World.
l don't have too much of a problem with the USA.
That country is the one with the problems, big ones too.
How much money does your country owe to China?
Your last couple of sentences in post # 24 are illogical.
1) We were not a collection of colonies, YOU were(as Americans).
2) l realise that Argentina did not exist in 1765(when we claimed the Falklands)that was my point.
3) No doubt CFK, IS re-writing history.
Awaiting your prompt reply.
Police of the world is not what most Americans wan,you should know that if you know the American people so well.
While the middle east and I would surmise SA as danced in the streets at 9/11..........the world knew the retribution is an awfully high cost when one decides to kick at a hornets nest. Personally I would like to see the UN out of my country as I am tired of 22% (4 billion) of the cost for a useful entity.
You & l are monopolising this thread. But its great fun, don't you agree?
l have been to the USA many times & have a lot of friends there.
l don't disagree that many people danced in the streets at 9/11.
And that is disgusting.
lnvading lraq had very little to do with 9/11.
lt was only the oil.
Saddam was as much an enemy of Al Quaida as the west was.
We do not have to get into an in depth argument about that here.
The subject of our original “discussion” was about the treatment of Julian Assange.
However l did take offence when you said that the Falklands were not ours.
Who do you believe these lslands belong to then?
Surely not Argentina?
lf you believe that Argentina owns our land, then you cannot deny that Mexico owns your own south-west.
They may have lost them in war, as you say. Does that decide ownership?
Well then, we defeated Argentina, so by your logic, we own the Falklands.
We are supposed to be allies.
lf you won't support us in the Falklands, then give me a good reason why we should support you in Afghanistan?
You can't have it both ways, can you?
I never felt we had a justified means to enter Iraq, and later proved correct. The war touched me in more ways than one. But as for Afghanistan, I do not believe we are looking for support as much as trying to get out.
Just wanted to pick you up on this thing that the Iraq war was about oil. This conclusion has never convinced me because there are much easier ways to get oil, ie buying it.
If you just look at the numbers and think about it, it really is implausible. It is nice and easy to believe that the war was for oil, but it just doesn’t hold up:
In 2002 US oil imports were as follows:
monthly year %
saudi 56 672 24.5
venezuela 20 240 8.7
nigeria 19 228 8.3
kuwait 6 72 2.6
algeria 1 12 0.4
canada 46 552 20.1
mexico 54 648 23.6
uk 12 144 5.2
iraq 11 132 4.8
norway 4 48 1.7
229 2748 100.0
That is right, less than 5% came from Iraq.
Cost of the Iraq war to US tax payer: $800,000,000,000 ($800 Billion)
At 2002 prices, this could buy 40 billion barrels of oil.
40 billion barrels would keep the US in oil for 42 years!
Or look at it another way, the cost of the war could have paid for Iraqi imports alone for 303 years.
Your point to my statements what? My statement was that I did not believe we should have been in Iraq, your statement reconcile with that how? Your nationality please, it's help context.
My comment was really directed at Isolde's assuption that the Iraq war was about oil.
Due to the fact that you were both involved in a discussion, I thought it would be polite to address you both. That's all.
I'm Chilean for the record.
l've always thought that it was all about oil.
lraq has a lot of it.
lt was also unfinished business over Kuwait & the 1st Gulf war.
lraq's disinformation on WMD, worked only too well.
We believed that they had such weapons although none have ever been found.
l suppose some kindly souls in the US & UK governments were also disturbed about what Saddam was doing to his own people.
Much like Argentina were doing to their own citizens.
Somehow the US(& probably the UK)connected Saddam's regime with Al Quaida. Just because they're both Arab doesn't make them allies.
ln fact Al Quaida & Saddam's regime hated each other.
All these were reasons for the West to invade lraq.
But l, personally believe that it was mainly the prospect of cheap or free, plentiful oil.
@30Captain Poppy,
l would have thought, by my posts, that it was obvious where l come from.
Very condensed, l am a British citizen living in land that Argentina,wrongfully claims.
l don't dislike you, although l don't agree with your feelings about the Falklands & how you think we should even entertain the idea of any rapport with Argentina.
Especially knowing what they want & after what they have done.
Cristina is nothing.
l just don't like her because she perpetuates the malvinista lies for personal purposes.
She, of course(unless she is completely stupid)knows that they are lies.
Can you see how unconditional your love of CFK is?
Just because Nestor did the right thing re Galtieri doesn’t mean that you have to support CFK on everything.
You can’t profess friendship to the Falklands and support CFK’s harassment of them. I think the Islanders are much better placed to tell you what CFK means to them.
Nestor walked away from cooperation on oil, not Cameron.
I don’t care much for Cameron, but I don’t blame him for something he hasn’t done.
It is your kind of entrenched blind loyalty to a personality or a “side” that causes most problems in the world.
@35 Isolde
I agree with you that all you have listed (except oil) were factors in the decision to invade Iraq. I would add to your list:
Israeli and Saudi lobbying.
Encircling Iran and China.
Oil makes no sense. The numbers just don’t add up.
Trot out your points, re Cristina.
My main dislike, is the stance that she has taken about the Falklands.
Being in her position, she would have access to all historical records, etc.
Therefore she KNOWS that the whole malvinista scenario is just complete rubbish. Yet she goes along with it & people could get killed for it, in the future.
l know that she is no spring chicken, but l, personally, do not consider her “lovely” as you have stated a few times.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course.
@40 Condorito,
Oil makes a lot of sense, when its free.
Cost of the Iraq war to US tax payer: $800,000,000,000 ($800 Billion)
That is not free oil.
PS: BK is blind when it come to CFK, he will never see that you are 100% correct. To ideologues of his ilk you are not people with rights, you are remnants of empire that must be disposed of. Note that he disapproves of Galtieri because he killed Argentineans, not because he invaded your home. I think it is called etho-masochism.
Thats a lie
“Note that he disapproves of Galtieri because he killed Argentineans, not because he invaded your home”
Both actually, so wrong again
“I think it is called etho-masochism”
So thats what they call a Latin American who loves the IMF!
Thats true, Wars are not cheap. One of the reasons we had to give up on Suez in 1956 is because we ran out of money.
Ok, if that is a lie, answer this simple question:
Do the Falklanders have to right to choose not to be governed by Buenos Aires?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!