MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Ecuador claims UK prepared to raid London embassy to catch Assange
Ecuador said on Wednesday the British government had threatened to raid its embassy in London if WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is not handed over, and that Quito would make its decision on his asylum request on Thursday. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesGreat, so next time I commit a crime I will run into Ecuador´s Embassy and seek asylum there.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 01 Jose
Aug 16th, 2012 - 02:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0What crime did he commit? Not wearing a condom or embarrasing the yanks?
The allegation is 'rape'. A serious crime. If he is innocent, why doesn't he take the opportunity of his day in court?
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Obvioulsy there is a reason why Sweden´s justice wants him. The rest is nothing but BS, false assumptions. Nobody in the US cares about this clown, he did nothing, he didn´t compromise any US defense secrets, all those cables had nothing but silly gossip of embassy officials.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Assange is a clown, Sweden is not a puppet of the US, they are an independent nation and they claim he has to be brought to justice there.
3 Mr Lorton,
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you sure or wrong as always?
Malvinas Argentinas ...get used to it.
“Sex Without A Condom Is ”Rape“ In Sweden, Says A Swede”
“First it was rape. Then it was molestation. Now, it seems, it's rape again, except that everyone agrees the sex was consensual, which seems to undermine an essential premise of rape.
And then there's this bit about the broken condom and the women who, after the fact, wanted the promiscuous and footloose Assange tested for sexually transmitted diseases.
In any event, we received a note from a Swedish reader this morning. The reader, Johan Lindberg, posits that it WAS rape because one of the women did not agree to have sex without a condom. Which means, we guess, that what happened between Assange and the woman started out as ”sex“ and became ”rape“ when the condom broke”
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-12-08/news/30013405_1_condom-swedish-law-swedish-media#ixzz23fycYHNW
I think the only rape commited was against the yanks.
Once a hacker always a hacker, I'd say the yanks are a little worried about his capabilities don't you think ? I don't pity this clown he made his choices ! but this ridiculous media attention is putting the UK in a sticky spot and could hurt relationships with other nations ! but Ecuador would be my 3rd nation to piss off..so the choice should be to upset the Ecuadorians and storm the embassy get him on the first flight to Sweden ... end of the story ! Well except for him of course ! CIA bye
Aug 16th, 2012 - 04:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let it be known that More crap/Bingham/Think (whatever the hell he is called) supports rape.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 05:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0the only “FAKE” crime he commited was showing the world how incompetent our leaders (the same clowns that believe that we work for them and not the opposite) around the world are, what kind of pshychopaths they are with their childish behavior, sick twisted crimes/ lies about the iraq war, banking criminals..etc etc. And as usual, the useful idiots, fox news, cnn, bbc, nbc watchers, really believe he commited that fake sexual “crime”.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 05:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh here we go, world stage, issue to do with South America, how long will it be before this matter is turned into 'regional cause' by Kirchner in support of her Falklands claim. So predictable!
Aug 16th, 2012 - 06:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0So a couple of bobbies ringing the door bell of the Ecuador embassy and presenting a legal warrant of entry, then calmly arresting a person wanted for questioning in another EU state regards an allegation of rape is the “raiding” of an embassy?
Aug 16th, 2012 - 06:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos - British flag flying over the Falkland, first oil in H1 2017 and your nation with no spine to do anything about it. I guess you have had about 200 yrs to get used to it.
Exclusive for all you malvinistas, if your quick you can get this in BA Herald for your daily dose of revised propaganda, oh sorry - news!
Aug 16th, 2012 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0At 0700, James Bond will collect HM The Queen at Buckingham Palace and from there they will sky-dive on to the top of the Ecuadorian Embassy where the Queen will rugby tackle Assange to the ground. Now quick Malvinistas run, run whilst this is an exclusive.
Alternatively, he will just be slapped in handcuffs by Immigration when he reaches the airport terminal.
Tragic too see the usual Neanderthal Latin attitudes to women as nothing more than a chattel, to use and abuse, coming to the fore in some of the comments.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for what Britain is threatening, it doesn't even come close to storming the embassy as the ineptly twisted Ecuadorian propaganda suggests. All the UK has said - which is what I have been saying all along - is that the UK at its disposal the right, under both UK and International law, to give seven day's notice removing the diplomatic privilege of the embassy premises - and that after those seven days the embassy will no longer be Ecuadorian sovereign territory thus leaving the police free to enter the property to execute the outstanding arrest warrant against Julian Assange .. and that is there is any attempt made by the Ecuadorians to resist any such attempt to arrest Julian Assange, it will in fact be them, not the British, who are breaking International law.
The pissy little Ecuadorian upstarts just don't like the fact that they have been totally outmanoeuvred and that the only way for them to continue to protect Julian Assange will be for them to be seen in the eyes of the whole world as being the uneducated retards who can't abide by International law.
As for those who claim that Assange has done nothing wrong, well you are wrong. Even if he hasn't yet been convicted of anything in Sweden, he is in breach of his bail conditions in the UK and is therefore a criminal in the eyes of every country in the UK and indeed almost every country in the world.
@12
Aug 16th, 2012 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent summary of the situation.
When it comes to the South Americans I'm never sure whether it's something being lost in translation of just an inept attempt at using provocative language to get a response. I suspect maybe a bit of both.
As for the Ecuadorean Foreign Minister, if he actually wishes to see what happens should the UK decide to STORM the embassy he only need Google the Iranian Embassy siege of 1980. Let's see how long Assanges’ welcome lasts then!
It is a fact that the United States jails foreigners indefinitely and without charge. It is a fact that Mr. Assange has not been charged with any crime. It is a fact that allies collaborate in the rendition of wanted individuals with the United States. Well, the swedes are U.S. allies and the U.S. is furious at Assange's shenanigans, so it seems reasonable that once under Swede detention he could very easily be handed over to the U.S. and spend the rest of his life in Guantanamo, without trial.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is a very credible scenario. And If I was the Yanks, that is precisely what I would do.
Looks like the UK is about to break off diplomatic relations with Ecuador.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Assange needs to go back to Sweden but can't help feeling that if the UK Govt can go to such lengths in his case,why cant they get rid of the umpteen foreign terrorist scum clogging up the Justice system and costing the taxpayer millions. At least Assange has, in the main, had the good grace to sponge off Ecuador during his time in London.
There will be a reason why the UK is doing this. Either pressure from the US or some other reason. They'll know what they are doing and sooner or later that reason will become clear. Also isnt Ecuador similar to the likes of Bolivia, Argentina and Venezuela as regards politics? Maybe we are trying to stir something up with those countries.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0One more thing, I'm not defending Mr. Assange but the Ecuadorian embassy invited Swede officials to question Mr. Assange in the safety of their mission in London, a very reasonable offer since he has not been charged with any crime. They refused. Could there be another reason why the Swedes are so keen to get him over to Sweden? Maybe a previously arranged handover to the United States? After what the Yanks did in Chile in the 70's I wouldn't put anything past them.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anyone who thinks the Swedes are a US puppet are deluded, the Swedes are neutral. #14 it is not a credible scenario in the slightest.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0There was nothing to stop the US making an extradition request whilst he was in detention in the UK, they didn't. So the conspiracy theories are fanciful nonsense.
@12 Summarised the situation well. There was no threat made. A meeting was held between diplomats from both countries in Ecuador. All the available options of how to resolve the matter were discussed and ONE of them was the suggestion that rather than break off diplomatic relations and send the Ambassador home in order to enter the premises, there is a rarely used provision under UK law to temporarily suspend the embassy building's status at an agreed time. (Effectively giving Ecuador a way out of this mess). It was never going to be a 'storming of the building' because there is only one way out of the building and it is guarded, so unless Mr. Assange is going to live there forever, he will be arrested.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Minutes of the meeting were given out to the diplomats that attended the meeting and the Ecuadorians have chosen to lie and throw a hissy fit. One has to wonder who is pulling their strings?
I thought Ecuador was a Spanish colony in the past.
@14 if we're talking facts...
Aug 16th, 2012 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is a fact that an allegation of rape was made against Mr Assange.
It is a fact that there is a international arrest warrant issued for the arrest of Mr Assange by Sweden, accepted by Interpol.
It is a fact that Mr Assange as a result of that warrant was arrested by UK authorities after he gave himself in.
It is a fact that the UKappeals focussed not on any threat of extradition to the US...but on due process in the Swedish system and differences between Swedish and UK law.
It is a fact that Mr Assange only chose to seek asylum AFTER exhausting the legal process in the UK (appealing to a Magistrates Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court following the initial extradition hearing).
It is a fact that in so doing Mr Assange broke his conditions of bail...itself an illegal act.
It is a fact that Sweden is regarded by Human Rights organisations such as Freedom House as having the best protection of human rights and civil liberties in the world...if you add up their 2012 index for Civil Liberties Sweden comes joint top (UK 30th, US 34th...Ecuador about 100th).
It is a fact that while some US politicians have called for prosecution of Assange - no prosecution has been launched and no extradition appeal has been made (to either Sweden or the UK).
It is a fact that it is easier to extradite to the US from the UK than Sweden...in fact the Espionage law in the US is not covered under the US-Sweden treaty whereas it is under the UK - US treaty (signed after 9/11 and frankly considered obnoxious by most people in the UK in making it too easy to extradite).
It is a fact that he cannot be legally extradited from any EU country (UK & Sweden) to face the death penalty.
It is a fact that under international law it is not legal to offer asylum to escape prosecution for non-political crimes.
While I actually like what Mr Assange has done to tweak the noses of governments it simply looks as though he is squirming to avoid a sex charge...
Conspiracy theories abound as usual. Assange is wanted in Sweden. Sweden has an extradiction treaty with Britain. Britain will stay within the law in dealing with such matters. If british forces have to enter the equadorian embassy then they will do it with the full force of the law behind them. The government never acts above the law and when police action is sanctioned it is with the force of the law. Britain is not a tinpot dictatorship. The truth is that Assange is all for free speech (and so we all should be) and he then goes and hides out in a country that has a poor record on this front. He is a hypocrite and it seems to me that he has a god complex.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 08:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0@14 The Chilean perspective
Aug 16th, 2012 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0All of which points are wholly irrelevant. Assange is wanted in Sweden in connection with charges which would, despite what any number of utterly clueless propagandists would have you believe, is also be a criminal offence in England and Wales .. and for that fact alone it would be wholly illegal under English, European and International law for the UK to refuse the Swedish extradition request.
As for the demented drivel about the US, all you are offering is all manner of claims in order to try to support your ineptly woven conspiracy theory about secret deals to extradite Assange to the US .. theories that are totally undermined by the fact that the terms of the US' extradition treaty with the UK are such that it would be far easier for the US to extradite Assange from the UK than it would from Sweden.
So, is your scenario even remotely credible, let alone very credible? No, it is about as incredible as you can get.
PS: Just a quick note on the law .. even in England, consent to sex does not equate to a consent to unprotected sex. The law in England requires specific consent for that .. and even when consent for unprotected sex is given by a person who in ALL other circumstances would be deemed legally capable of giving consent, the law nullifies that consent automatically makes it variously rape, assault or even grievous bodily harm, if it suspects that knowledge about sexually transmitted diseases has been withheld from the person giving their consent. Assange, in refusing to submit to a test for STDs has given the Swedes ample grounds, under both Swedish and English law, to suspect that a very serious crime has been committed. Anyone who argues that he shouldn't at least be made to face the due process of the law, as regards those very serious charges, isn't fit to call themselves a member of the human race.
#5 Excellent summaryof this farce. And if the Sweedes would just assure Assange they will not send him to the US, they would have the moral highground; that they don't is deeply worrying. Not long to wait now for Ecuador's decisin, and this anger at the British government is a hopeful sign they'll make the right one. If Cameron then decides to expel the Embassy, perhaps all Latin American countries could threaten to break off diplomatic relations with Britain in solidarity? I think Cameron would back down at that, don't you?
Aug 16th, 2012 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK government had made it clear they will not allow Assange safe passage out of the country if he is granted asylum by Ecuador. The UK government has a duty to abide by the extradition treaty with Sweden.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why are people attempting to shelter an alleged rapist? Assange is not a political refugee and, therefore, not entitled to asylum at any embassy.
It is also worth mentioning that no-one else involved in Wikileaks can stand Assange. They fell out with him when he made it all about him rather than the cause.
@23 BK
Aug 16th, 2012 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why should the swedes say any kind of soothing words to Assange. They are following lawful procedure and so is Britain?. Any action britain takes will be lawful at all times. Assange is trying to avoid a court of law.
So you think it will make all latam countries look good if they behave as if to protect someone who may be a rapist? Let the law decide the outcome of his fate.
@5 MA
Clearly your summary is anti-british and anti-women and anti-american and most definitely anti-swede. Britain won't storm the embassy, bundle the bloke into a CIA plane or subject him to anykind of waterboarding. They'll arrest him as the embassy is closed, he'll get a lift to Sweden and if he's lucky enough to be there in the winter and in the north he'll get to see the Aurora Borrealis . everyone's a winner!
@ 22 Long wet stroll to victory.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think you are being very naive. The women have stated it was consensual sex. PERIOD. Do you really think that a government would go through all this drama attempting to extradite him after the accusers plainly said that it was consensual if they really didn't have an ulterior motive?
Also the British courts would not have agreed to extradite him to the United States on espionage charges because of the Yanks utter disregard for due process and the extreme punishment he would have received, water boarding for one. So forget that one, thats why the Yanks didn't have a go.
Sadly for Assange his attempt at fame and notoriety by publishing all that extremely embarrassing data, some secret, has doomed him. The best he can ever hope for is a sneaky escape from the Ecuadorian embassy to a lonely life in Ecuador.
Funny how britain bent over backwards NOT to arest General Pinochet.A mass murderer.But now claims the law is the law in this case
Aug 16th, 2012 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If assange had leaked russian chinese or Iranian secrets he would be walking around as free as could be as a hero. But because he humiliated the Yanks by exposing their dirty secrets. We have this circus
To all those people saying that this is an attempt by the US government to get hold of Assange for relasing all his details, why have the US government not intiated a extradition treaty in the UK which in recent years has clearly leaned towards favouring the US over UK residents?
Aug 16th, 2012 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Assnage is accused of raping two women in Sweeden and in line with International law they have requested his extradition to answer for these crimes. it is to early to say wether he is guilty or innocent but the extradition has seen the Sweedish prosecutors evidence on the subject and has decided there is a case to be answered. Assange is coward who is trying to hide from his own past and actions by hiding in the Embassy of a ntion recently widely critizsed for its poliies towards restricting free press. Let us not forget Assnage actualy broke his bail conditions (and therefore UK law) when he entered the embassy. Regardless of how stupid some of you regard his crimes, if he broke Sweeidsh law, he must answer for this.
Under international law it is ilegal for a embassy or consualte to interfeer with internal affairs and this is what we are clearly seeing in this case. There is a risk that the Equdorian consulate could be declared perosna no grata and removed from the country. Any break down in diplomatic relations would be fairly small given that the UK does very little trade and investment with Ecuador.
There is very little chance of him escaping the country, first and formost the Ecuadorian embasey is based in a town house with no parking facilities and as such Assnage would have to step out of the Ecudorian embassy to get into a car and then from the car to an airplane. As soon as he does he is officlay back on UK soil and freely open to arrest by the Met police. The best he has to hope for is live the remaninder of his life in this one London location. And that is not clear as the UK government have the right to remove diplomatic protection from the embassy.
#26
Aug 16th, 2012 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No they did not say is was consensual, they actually went to the police making an allegation of coercion into unprotected sex. This is why there is an arrest warrant out for him.
As to your comments why the British wouldn't extradite him, the Swedes are even more clean cut than the British and as one poster has already pointed out the Swedish/US extradition treaty would not allow him to be extradited on espionage charges. The US didn't have a go in the UK as although he embarassed the US, they don't care.
Amazing how some people on the left are all too willing to overlook serious sexual crimes by their idols.
Well, the usual LatAm idiots have shown their complete solidarity with the wrong position under international law yet again.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who GAF?
I wish the SAS did sort the problem out, they would see it as a training exercise and a chance to murder a few lefties to boot.
PS All you cowardly Malvinistas have to understand one thing. If ever the SAS are let loose on you, and it may well happen if the Falklands is threatened by TMBOA, that these people are full on murderers and great lads they are to. I wonder how many of you have just crapped yourselves. Ha, ha. LOL
In additon let us not forget that when Assange illegaly obtained and released the diplomatic papers on wikileaks he was breaking International laws on diplomatic immunity, yet now he is using the same laws he broke in order to cower from Justice.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Assange either believes in diplomatic immunity or he doesnt. What he has no right to do is pick and choice when these laws apply to him and when they do not.
The reason Sweeden has not ruled out extriditing him is that it cannot do so until A) The US presents a request for extridition and B) A court of law has adjudicated on the matter. It cannot comment on a hypothetical case that does not exisit and in which it has no anlaysed the evidence.
26 Deluded Chilean Troll
Aug 16th, 2012 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only naive person here is you with your banal conspiracy theories and and rank misogynistic twisting of facts.
Also, the women have not stated that they consented to unprotected sex, so there go your lies. PERIOD.
You are so full of the proverbial brown smelly stuff that it beggars belief.
To update all on the story the Ecudorian foreign secretry has announced it is granting Assange assulym stating it cannot be sure that his extradition would not breach his human rights.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is against intenrational law as they have chossen to interfer in UK internal affiars. The Uk government has stated it will not allow him safe passage as he has breached his bail conditions and has a legal obligation to extridite him. I hope Mr Assnage enjoys his current home in London because he will be either spending the rest of his life there being arrested the moment he steps outside.
White Men being awarded protection from prosecution in South America is a policy from the 1940s.
Ecuador shows a total disregard for international law, turns itself into a pariah state and sells political asylum to the highest bidding common fugitive from justice.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Prepare for the eviction notices, because Ecuador's diplomats are going home and Assange is booked on a flight to Stockholm to keep an appointment with the prosecutor :)
We are talking about Assange being accused of a criminal offence. He is not a political refugee.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess Stuart Hazell should have rocked up at a South American embassy seeking asylum to avoid the charge of murder breaching his human rights.
News article from the BBC. Most the story we know but check out the comments from Dominic Casciani, Home affairs correspondent as to the sututation from here.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You will quite clearly see that Assnage has been granted political assylum which only applies in a case where his political freedom is being restricted. Which they are not, neither have they been since he released his data on wikileaks. It does not apply in the case of a serious crime and diplomatic immunity does not equate to immunity from prosecution. In fact there was a case a few years ago when a Saudi Prince (covered by diplomatic immunity) was prosecuted and found guility of beating and raping his servent. The latest decision from Ecuador does not change anything.
Mr Assange has made his career from expoising hipocrisy and those who use diplomatic immunity or their politcal status to avoid prosecution, yet we now see he is using the same tricks. What a cowardly hypocrite Mr Assange is.
And how typical of a South American banana republic to support such an individual.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0woops, forgot to paste the link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492
Aug 16th, 2012 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, Ecuador has granted him political asylum. Now Britain will give notice to Ecuador to vacate the building and he will be grabbed. Job done.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Assange is a foreigner who has broken bail and therefore broken the law in England.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It remains to be seen if he has broken the law of and in Sweden.
This should be put to the test.
The USA prefers not to take him to the USA to face trial for matters of state security, etc. Putting him on trial would allow him to make public declarations about US policy and practices, under the privilages of the courtroom, that it wishes to keep quiet.
No, Assange must be 'taken out' by other means and by others.
Whether the Swedish accusations were true or mere fabrications, it would be necessary to fabricate something very similar.
Indeed, we can expect such accusations to be made by non-American surrogates at regular intervals, continuously throughout the rest of his life.
He will be sorry he ever twisted the tail of the tiger.
It's absolutely laughable having Ecuador lecture us about human rights when their police division, the GAO (Grupo de Apoyo Operacional) is guilty of torture and extrajudicial executions. So it comes as no surprise that they are prepared to harbour an alleged criminal. If Assange is innocent why should he fear the Swedish judicial system?
Aug 16th, 2012 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We should boot Ecuador out, and they can take that ginger bint Castro with them. Trying to maintian diplomatic relations with these backward nations is more trouble than it's worth.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0well let me see... general pinochet, dictator, accused of hideous crimes against humanity is set free and returned to Chile.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and now they want to storm a foreign embassy for a person suspiciously accused of not using a condom after he embarrassed the US and friends and who has agreed to the possibility of being questioned in the Ecuadorian embassy?
and they want the world to believe its not politically motivated? lol.
i DO hope they end up storming the embassy. would love to see what happens to british missions in south america when that happens.
“The guilty flee where no man pursues.” Might have been written for JA, mightn't it? Oh, look: Jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Assange is a criminal. That's easy to understand. He's breached his bail conditions. He's also attempted to place himself beyond the reach of the British authorities. As has been pointed out, Ecuador has now attempted to interfere in an internal domestic matter. Now the embassy of Ecuador in London is a flat (apartment). So there'll be no helicopters landing on the roof.
There's no political element in what Assange is accused of. So, to grant him political asylum as he attempts to evade justice on a criminal matter is ludicrous.
There will be nothing to stop action by the British police, particularly after he steps out of the embassy. If an Ecuadorian diplomat or official attempts to obstruct the police, that diplomat or official can be arrested. Any vehicle on diplomatic plates can be stopped and Assange removed. Even if he were to get to an airport, no aircraft would be allowed to take off with Assange on board.
Sorry Ecuador, diplomatic “immunity” is not a free pass. Please note that the Vienna Convention is explicit that “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.”
@43 If any country had the “right” to try Pinochet, it was Chile. And where was he sent to when he left the UK? Chile. Try again.
@43
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you believe Assange has the right to avoid being tried for a serious crime which he is accused. For a man who is supposodily about freedom of speech it is really funny that he seems so intent on avoiding the truth of this incident isnt it? Regardless of the circumstances, if he is accused of having broke a law in Sweeden and the Sweedish authrosities were able to prove to an extridition court that they hold enought evidence to justify an extradition then international law states he must return to Sweeden to answer these crimes. Ina didtion he is guilty of having broken his bail conditions when he begain his cowardly act of hiding in a foreign embassy, and is therefore in contempt of court (a crime in many countires).
If he is innocoent and believes so much in freedom of speach then agree to be extridted so we will all hear the truth of these alligations. It is funny how he only choose to claim political asylum after he had exhuasted his final attempt to fight extradition in the court system isnt it.
I would suggets that the decision to grant him asylum is as politicaly motivated as anything else in this.
There will be no storming of the embassey (the word storm is being missused, the British government aims to remove the politcal protection from the embassy as it has borkne international law by interferring in an internal affair, by granting politcal protection to a man with an arrest warrent over him and assisting him in breaching his bail conditions as set by a UK court). The problem is that he cannot leave the embassy building as he will then no longer be covered by diplomatic immunity (he is not a registered and excpected Ecudorian diplomat) and will be arrested either when trying to get into a car or when at the airport. The UK will just sit quietly and wait for him to get cabin fever.
As many people have said, if he has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear and should embrace the rights of the women who accuse him to use there freedom of speach
To all the imbeciles comparing this to the Pinochet extradition, they seem to forget that it was Spain, not Chile, that was seeking to extradite Pinochet, that the Chilean government was opposed to the extradition and that the extradition would have been wholly illegal under both English and International law as all the charges related to offences committed before the UK signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture (which only came in to force in 1987) and passed the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The lengths that some clueless morons will go to in order to draw correlations, where there are none, is quite hilarious and just shows how desperate they are to justify their totally demented opinions.
Still, I guess that is what happens when you are stupid enough to take advice on International Law from Cristina 'the whore from La Plata' de Kirchner
Pinochet was arrested on an arrest warrant from Spain. I seem to recall Chile withdrew its ambassador in protest. He spent 16 months under arrest in the UK before being allowed to return to Chile on humanitarian grounds.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wikipedia has a reasonable write up about the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet
As usual its fling mud about in gay abandon, of no relevance to the discussion at hand but merely serves to distract from the discussion.
The British Government has not threatened to storm the Ecuadoran embassy, they have a duty under international agreements to deport a suspected rapist under a warrant issued by the Swedish Government.
For those demanding that the Swedes give an undertaking that he would not be extradited elsewhere, Sweden has an independent judiciary who would decide on any extradition request on its merits, the Swedish Government has no say in the matter.
Its curious how many people are willing to trivialise sexual crimes.
@43 Troneas (#)
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:12 pm
What? You mean like violent protest, criminal damage, burning of Union Flags, desecration of war memorials by government sponsored propagandists and nobody brought to book? That sort of thing?
Wouldn't be the first time would it? Sure as hell won't be the last. It is the kind of price you pay when you try to maintain dialogue with folk who were never taught how control themselves or their emotions.
@44. “Please note that the Vienna Convention is explicit that '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.'” This refers to the privilages and immunities of asylees as such the ”receiving” State in this case would be Ecuador.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@45. regardless. look there are many cases in history where an individual accused of crimes sought asylum and received it. its in the right of sovereign nations to offer protection to citizens who feel persecuted.
whether he is innocent or not is besides the point. Ecuador is in its right to concede the asylum and in doing so is not interfering in internal British affairs - Assange sought them not the other way round. Now England has to accept the rules of the game. Storming an embassy or removing its diplomatic status because they feel the decision reached by Ecuador is contrary to what they consider proper is ludicrous. Assange is under Ecuadorian protection now, the Brits have done their part if they continue this course with threats and what not it will only fuel suspicion of political motivation.
@49 Troneas
Aug 16th, 2012 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, whilst Ecuador is within its right to grant asylum, it is a grant that has no validity under international law, since Assange clearly hasn't been in any way restricted in his political activities whilst he has been seeking to escape Swedish justice in the UK.
It is a political stunt on the part of Ecuador and the whole thinking world sees it as just that. The fact that you don't see that just shows which world you belong to.
As an Australian why did he not seek asylum at Australian embassy?
Aug 16th, 2012 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@51 agent999
Aug 16th, 2012 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because he knows the Australian's would have invited the Metropolitan Police to enter the premises and haul his cowardly little arse straight on to the 18:00 flight to Stockholm Arlanda ;)
No.50:
Aug 16th, 2012 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Right: The possibility of UK raiding the embassy is nonsense and propaganda; Equador has no other reason than to gain some international attention for home-grown reasons.
And we all know who is cheering on Ecuador.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@49 I dont, frankly care. It is the basis of the entire legal foundation of human civilisation that a person accused of a crime in which sufficent evidence can be shown to exisit that it warrants them being extridited to face the legal system of the nation in which he broke the law, should be extridited. The only reason a country has to deny the extradition request is if the person is unlikely to face a fair trial, be subject to unnusual or cruel punishment. Neither of these two points have been established. Assnage is abusing the asylum rules (designed to allow someone to seek protection in a neutral country from persuction in their own country) in order ot prevent the criminal investigation into his actions from progressing.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Ecudorian embassy has interfered in British internal affiras the momment they shettled a criminal (breaking your bail conditions, is a criminal act) and prevented the UK officals from carrying out the legal obligation udner international law to extridict a person wanted for questioning.
Britain will not enter embassy unless invited it would cause to many foreign office problems. However Assange can not live in those 4 walls ideffintly.
“This refers to the privilages and immunities of asylees”
I am afriad it dosent mean this at all. it means that those people enjoying diplomatic immunity (Assange doesnt btw as he was never accepted as diplomate by the UK home office) must abide by the laws of the nation in which they excersie these rights. Diplamatic imuniy is not the same as imunity from prosecution. There is no legal obligtion on the UK to give Assange safe passage out of the UK just because he has been granted political asylum (something which in this case which gives him no protection at all)Political asylum does not allow people to dodge criminal prosecution for non political crimes (Or are you now going to argue that by extridting him the UK is in violation of his political right to rape women?).
Just imagine the prescedence
”Assnage is abusing the asylum rules (designed to allow someone to seek protection in a neutral country from persuction in their own country) in order ot prevent the criminal investigation into his actions from progressing. ”
Aug 16th, 2012 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed. However, his abuse of the system would be minor compared to the size of the diplomatic incident if the met were to storm another nation's embassy to drag him out. He's nothing if not calculating.
Also the possibility, however remote it may be, of ending up in the tender care of the american justice system is terrifying. I'd probably try and pull any strings I could get hold of to avoid that. But hey, i'm not a rapist or a whistleblower so it's not something that applies to me :)
I seriously doubt the UK will play with the concepts of diplimatic immunity. However, Ecuador has certainly abused the intentions of the law and provided immunity to a man seeking to avoid justice under a very thin veil of political percsecution. Assange choose the path that he is now walking. And he is a criminal, he is a self admtted hacker. That's not a very large building. I wonder how long it will be before they drive him insane?
Aug 16th, 2012 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@56 I agree with you that storming the embassy would be a catastrophic mistake and have wide spread problems from the foreign office. I dont think it will happen either I think it was a little bit of stupid of the UK to threaten it in the first place (it was a litle bit of gunboat diplomacy, gone wrong).
Aug 16th, 2012 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What I am protesting about is the misinformed legal opions on here which would suggest and in some cases support that a non political criminal can use the asylum system to avoid due process and then expects to just walk out of the country. The prescednece for this in the future would be huge. In adidtion I find it insulting to all those people claiming politcal aslyum for genuine reasons who are having there politcal and/or relgious rights stamped on that this man is using the law(for a purpose it was not intended to be used for) to deny his accusers from their rights to due process in seeing justice served.
Ecudor in my opion is also cheapining true asylum claiments.
I agree that I would battle it as hard as I legally could but I do not hold myself to be an expert and hero of the masses when it comes to free speach.
By taking this action however, Assange has effectivly commited himself to long term incarcaration within the Ecudorian embassy and simultationiously refused to clear his name in the conventionaly internationaly accepted way. As far as I am concerned he is showing the world his contempt for freedom of speach (something he places himself on a pedestol as being) as well as a coward attempting to prevent due process. in my mind the man is a hipocritcal liar.
Just because he released some embarassing government secrets and became a pop culture celebrity does not give him any rights to escape the investigation of crimes potential commited against him or to breach his bail conditions.
The true problem is that the UK court granted him a 10 day grace period before extridition. he has taken that oppurtunity from others in the future.
@49 It applies to the privileges and immunities accorded to accredited diplomats. It doesn't apply to criminals. So the Ecuadorian diplomats are required to act in accordance with UK laws and regulations. Not to interfere in UK justice. Dumkopf. Ecuador is NOT “within its rights”. Or has it decided to turn itself into a church so that he can ask for “sanctuary”? I would not be at all surprised if the UK breaks off diplomatic relations and gives the Ecuadorians 48 hours to close their “embassy” and leave the UK.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ecuador is heading down, and I do mean DOWN, a long rocky road. I'm not suggesting that it's as low as argieland, yet, but it's headed in the right direction.
In recent news, the Swedish foreign ministry has summoned the Ecuadorian ambassador over the “unacceptable” decision to grant asylum.
“WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will not be allowed safe passage out of the UK, Foreign Secretary William Hague said today as he warned that diplomatic immunity should not be used to harbour alleged criminals.”
”Mr Hague said Mr Assange’s rights were 'guaranteed' and this should be enough for Ecuador.
He added: 'We are committed to work with Ecuador amicably... we cannot give safe passage to somebody in this situation.
'We would not agree to safe passage to someone granted asylum in these circumstances.
'It could (go on for months or years). It is, above all, a difficulty for Ecuador and for Mr Assange but this is a strange position for an embassy to be in.
'Diplomatic immunity exists to allow embassies and diplomats to exercise proper diplomatic functions and the harbouring of alleged criminals, or frustrating the due legal process in a country, is not a permitted function.”
Ecuador said this
Aug 16th, 2012 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ecuador said that,
More anti British crap,
.
@55. “a person accused of a crime in which sufficent evidence can be shown to exisit that it warrants them being extridited to face the legal system of the nation in which he broke the law, should be extridited.”
Aug 16th, 2012 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and where is all this “sufficient evidence” you speak of. These two swedish sluts brought the accusations weeks after the alleged condom broke and right after the whole wikileaks scandal.
Ecuador has offered the swedish authorities to interrogate assange in the embassy - they refused. now you tell me - how do you go about proving a condom broke or that he didn't use a condom in consensual sex? its his word against theirs. and they've already said it was consensual. i'm sorry but stupid laws that are open to this kind of debate and are impossible to verify , determine, corroborate shouldnt exist in the first place.
anyone with a little imagination can see that this was all conveniently orchestrated right after the wikileaks reports hit the media.
@61
Aug 16th, 2012 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Assange was living in Sweden at the time of the alleged offences so it is only right that he should return for questioning.
You might consider the serious nature of the charges to be “stupid” and that the the law in Sweden is wrong - it might be a lot less strict in your own country.
It is only those of you with a vivid imagination that believe this all a great plot to extradite Assange to the US.
@61 First of all I find your acussation that a posisble rape victim is a slut to be absoutly disgusting and shows more about your own bigoted view of women than anything else. I take it your assumption is that all women who cry rape are sluts looking for publicty. (Not syaing it doesnt happen.) The idea of time has no bearing unless the statue of limitations has been exceeded as many rape victims can find it an extremly distressing ordeal to report rape.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you the sufficent evidence it would of been presented at the extradition hearing held in the UK courts as well as at his appeals including to the UK supreme court. Here is a puplicy avalible copy of the ruiling
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2011_0264_Judgment.pdf
Your argument is that because the crime (In your eyes is minor) that he should be able to dodge the Sweedish authorities right to due process in investigating a crime. The sweedish authorities have the right to follow due process this involves the right to question him in Sweeden (the country in hwich he is accused). For example should they find from his questions that they will attempt a case against him they would have to return to square 1 in order to get him to appear at trial and be subject to Sweedish law.
If it is his word against theirs then he shouldnt have a problem saying this in a n open court shoudl he? Remember Sweeden uses the same legal system in which a jury of his peers will decide his guilt not politicians. All he has to do is convince them.
Ina snwer to idea of a comdom splitting if he continued to have sex with them after it split then he has commited a form of rape. Consent to sex with protection is not the same as consent to sex without protection. Also if he was asked to stop at any point and did not this is also rape.
I would guess a smart man who had just pissed off the worlds most powerful country might be a bit more careful where he stuck his bloody cock. Wouldnt you?
@62.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well if it isnt a great plot to extradite assange to the US, then why would he be so reluctant to face trial in Sweden?
What could the swedish authorities hope to prove?
For the sake of argument lets say he did in fact not use a condom. yet, if it was consensual sex as these two put it, then they consented to having sex without him wearing a condom. otherwise they would have denied penetration would they? they are no 10 for crying out loud.
Diplimatic Immunity is being confused with Polical Asylum and the two are different concepts. First, all diplomats must be registered and APPROVED by the host country.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0According to the Vienna conventions of Diplimatic Relations of 1961:
It is true that diplomats are exempt from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the host country. However, this exemption may be waived by their home country. Moreover, the immunity of a diplomat from the jurisdiction of the host country does not exempt him/her from the jurisdiction of his/her home country.
It is also within the discretion of the host country to declare any member of the diplomatic staff of a mission persona non grata (or unwanted person). This may be done at any time and there is no obligation to explain such a decision. In these situations, the home country, as a rule, would recall the person or terminate his/her function with the mission.
Each and every country has it's own rules and procedures and the sovereign rights to grant politcal asylum and most effective performed within the borders of it's own country. However other country do not have to grant diplimatic immunity to someone for the mere fact that a country has granted them political asylum. My guess is that the UK is using those days to declare Assange a persona non grata and request that he be removed from British soil. And once he leaves.......
@63. Thanks for the link. I just needed to read the first few lines:
Aug 16th, 2012 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”On 2 December 2010 the Swedish Prosecution Authority (“the Prosecutor”), who is the respondent to this appeal, issued a European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) signed by Marianne Ny, a prosecutor, requesting the arrest and surrender of Mr Assange, the appellant. Mr Assange was, at the time, in England, as he still is. The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010. “
FOUR MONTHS to bring charges of ”RAPE“? are you serious? And by ”RAPE” we have to understand its consensual sex but not really because he didnt use a condom but they thought it was OK at the time and four months later changed their mind?
get real people. and you brits are supposed to be sensible.
@66 I guess you are going to provide evidence that they said no to sex without a condom? Your are inventing hypothetical situations to twist the argument the law is based on the facts of the case not what ifs.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would suggets you read the entire document. Assnage did not even try to appeal on the basis of lack of evidence but that the person who signed the arrest warrant was not qualified to do so. Something the court after consideration found to not be upheld by eithe British or European law.
The facts remain mr Assange entered Sweeden and in doing so agreed to be abide by Sweedish law and the process of Sweedish law. Ignorance is no defense in law and neither is well i dont like they way they conduct law.
“Well if it isnt a great plot to extradite assange to the US, then why would he be so reluctant to face trial in Sweden?”
Well the only person who can tell use that is Mr Assange isnt it. Untill he shows his willing to be involved in the criminal investigation and clear his name we can only speculate.
Ultiamtly people with far more intilligence (in terms of legal udnerstanding) have looked at the case and decided it is valid to extridte him. Unless you are now claiming to be an international acclaimed human right lawyer?
If Mr Assnage is innconent then so be it (At present he is only guilty of breaching his bail conditions). The US has had 2 years to bring an extradition treaty and has chossen not to do so. Why would they start now? Also, why would they choose to start extradition with Sweeden (a country not embarssed by the leaks and with no real close relashionship with the US) rather than with the UK (embarssed by the leaks and with a very close relashionship). As well most consipiracy theories yours are build on what ifs and maybes rather than any concrete evidence. I expect your next argument will be some form of flase flag incident to decieve us all. Do us a favour an take your il-informed bigoted opions somewhere else, becuase your arguments fail
Assange is a wanted man, accused of rape and rather unforgivably the Ecuadorians not only give him safe haven but try and get their mates in SA to bypass international law. If Assange is innocent then let him face a jury of his peers and clear his name.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hold on there, hold on there!!!
Aug 16th, 2012 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Today we've received a threat by the United Kingdom, a clear and written threat that they could storm our embassy in London”
I think that, for those who missed it, the key word in this is “Could” don't you think?
And in any case, I would invite EVERYONE to think about the fact that he was only accused of “Serious sexual assault” AFTER the wikileaks reports.
I'm with 61 Troneas on this one, 'cos it's all a load of B*ll*cks.
For the gimps who quite happily extoll the virtues of freedom of speech in Ecuador, shout and scream about human rights please read the link below.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador
@69. Not only that, but the swedish authorities had initially dismissed the charges for lack of merit. right after the wikileaks, the case was reopened.
Aug 17th, 2012 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0After the alleged victim filed a complaint of the dismissal.Ny added that “it's not entirely uncommon” that such reversals take place in Sweden, in particular regarding allegations of sex crimes. She also decided that another complaint against Assange should be investigated on suspicion of “sexual coercion and sexual molestation”. That overruled a previous decision to only investigate the case as “molestation,” which is not a sex crime under Swedish law.“
Aug 17th, 2012 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0A male prosecutor dismissed it, a senior female prosecutor reopened it. Men tend to take rape as a ”she asked for it“ attitude.
”
British hypocrisy
Aug 17th, 2012 - 04:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Self determination for the British in Malvinas they say.
Forget it about the Chagossians they do.
Blow up a civilian plane and you go home free(Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the bombing)
Break a condom during sexual intercourse in Sweden(WikiLeaks founder) and
now Britain is ready to assault Ecuador embassy in London because of that.
Oh how simple the case would be if Sweden PROMISED not to send Julian A onwards to the USA.
Aug 17th, 2012 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Have any of you thought, why they will not do that?
l never thought that l would side with the malvinistas on anything.
l know that they're only taking JA's side because its pissing us Brits off, but still, on this we are allies of a sort.
1) Sweden REFUSED to question J.Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.
2) Sweden WILL NOT guarantee not to send J.Assange on to the USA.
Aren't the alarm bells ringing?
Don't ANY of you find this just a wee bit suspicious?
Or is he already condemned & soon to be forgotten
l don't think that he picked Ecuador because of its freedom or human rights(?)
Probably because they were close by or were the only ones who would take him.
l don't have an answer to that.
@69 toooldtodieyoung,
You're thinking what l'm thinking(l think!).
“The facts remain, Mr Assange entered Sweden and in doing so agreed to be abide by Swedish law and the process of Swedish law.” EnginnerAbroad (#67)
Aug 17th, 2012 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is that what really happens when you cross a border?
How many people know the breadth, scope and details of US law before they take their family to Disneyland?
It takes a Law student perhaps 5 years to understand a little of the law of his/her country; I transited perhaps 10-20 countries per year .... how old would I have to be to avoid transgressing some law somewhere? Jaywalking, tipping, pulling up at the curb to ask the way ... and if every county and state has different laws, like in the USA ...
.... You can abide by the laws you know, you can make an educated guess about those you are not yet aware, but if 'they are out to get you' there will always be some laws available.
No, if the USA wanted to extradite Assange on the substantive matter, they have the laws and legal precedents to do it. They prefer not to.
In England and Wales, there is a process whereby the authorities judge the likelihood of getting a conviction based on the evidence or lack of it, and many allegations like this one never make it to court for this reason.
I'm just reading a book called “The Law's Strangest Cases: Extraordinary but True Incidents from over Five Centuries of Legal History,” by Peter Seddon. The 150 cases presented show where there is bad/outdated law, the law is, invariably, an ass ..... or worse.
The Assange Case (alleged), if it ever came to trial, would certainly be worthy of any sequel.
“Is that what really happens when you cross a border?”
Aug 17th, 2012 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes a persons ignorance of the law is no defense in law. Just because the law in someone home country differs to the law in a country they are entering does not mean they are not subject to the process of law in that country and the consequences of law in that country. In this case I would imgaine the law is very similar in Sweeden and Mr Assnages home country of Austrlia.
At the end of the day the UK has no right to interveen in the Sweedish justice system. The only argument is (as was argueed by Mr Assanages lawyer at the Supreme court) wether the arrest warrant was legal under EU law. It was and so the British Courts had to rule his extradition.
The only reasosn to deny extradition are: a) the perosn will be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment or b) Unlikely to recieve a fair trial. Please tell me how any of these two situations apply to Sweeden? And is a flase argument ti say well IF he was passed to the US this would be true. A court cannot judge a case based on hypothetical non existing arguments (that is called speculation).
Why after 2 years have there been no requests from the US for exradition? The US-UK extradition treaty is far more likely to favout the US than mr Assnage whislt the Sweedish-US extradition treaty is far more limited in its scope. Why would American take the hard route when a far easy one is open to it? The conspiracy theorist in here would like us all to believe this is some form of elaborate charade, but cannotprovide any evidence to substaiiate the claims.
Regardless of wether the law is an “ass” it is what we have to prevent a fall in chaos and anarcy. We are a country ruled by the rule of law, to choose to abanondond it will sets a dnagerous prescendece for the future of all nations.
Again if Mr Assanage has nothing to hide then go to Sweeden and clear your name. Stop using every trick to avoid doing it. So much for him being a bastion of free speach.
Law Law LAw law what law!!?? It does not exist!! wake up people!!
Aug 19th, 2012 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0When General pinochet was in Britain in 1998 he was arrested when the Spanish judge Garzon asked Britain to extradite him to Spain for crimes commited during his dictatorship and guess what??!! Britain let him off the hook and let him go back to Chile. Well!! well!! and now we have this Britain who wants to uphold the law and send this hacker off to Sweden to answer for rape crimes...OH COME OFF IT!! IF YOU BELIEVE THIS SHIT!! YOU WERE BORN YESTERDAY!!
@77
Aug 19th, 2012 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Would you rather have us believe that the UK is a better place to avoid extradition to the US than Sweden? Or that Assange would never dream of defending himself against a rape charge by claiming political persecution? Or that the US couldn't come up with a more credible extradition scenario than this?
@77 - Aussie
Aug 21st, 2012 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yawn. Old news.
This is about today not over a decade ago. Oh and the LAW stated that Pinochet couldn't be extradited under this new law for crimes committed before its introduction. You may not agree with the law, but without law there is anarchy
All I can say is that the US must be p!ssing themselves laughing over this.
All of Assanges claims rest on the US extraditing him from Sweden. Sooner or later Assange will end up facing the music in Sweden.
The US won't try to extradite him, thus proving that he is at best delusional and at worse a liar. His credibility will be destroyed.
But the punchline is this. Assange is the architect of his own demise, and the USA don't have to lift a finger.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!