Did a few searches but didn't see any recent threads.
Given the latest, with him seeking political asylum from Ecuador, this seems to have thrown the US's carefully constructed rendition plan into chaos. It seems to me the Australian government has been pretty lacklustre in providing any kind of assistance to ensure the dude gets a fair trial and doesn't get black boxed by the US.
What do you guys think about this?
A few quick points:
It seems pretty clear from the information available the rape allegations (not charges, mind you) are without merit.
Its been made clear the US will pursue prosecution.
Sweden has a distinctive extradition treaty with the US that most other countries don't have, so he'd easily be handed over once in Sweden.
I thought this was pretty poor:
After hearing Australian Foreign Minister Carr say on Lateline this week that "I don't know what a sealed indictment is", Christine Assange said:
I re-offer to sit with Foreign Minister Carr to give him a proper briefing about Julian's case because the poor man doesn't even know what a sealed indictment is. Alternatively, I welcome Minister Carr to visit my place of residence for that briefing. A cup of tea will be provided. At the same time I am quite prepared to also brief him about the temporary surrender agreement between Sweden and the US.
Some references:
Good interview with one of his QC's on Sunrise of all places:
When I read the allegations of what happened and accompanying story way back when it first came out it sounded quiet reasonable and believable and that he did have a case to answer under Swedish law as described.
They'll send 6 cars with dark windows and the poms won't know which car to pull over. They'll manage to stop them all but he wasn't in any of them. In the mean time he'll go out the sewers with two attractive tall blonde women that don't mind having unprotected sex and pop up two streets away, taking a mini-overpowered vehicle to get to the Stansted airport. They'll be looking for him at Heathrow because no one ever wants to leave from Stansted.
When I read the allegations of what happened and accompanying story way back when it first came out it sounded quiet reasonable and believable and that he did have a case to answer under Swedish law as described.
The first lawyers at the prosecutors went through the evidence and declared it a waste of time to prosecute as there wasn't a case. Wikileaks leaks sensitive US memos suddenly head prosecutors re-open the case against Assange and want him back in Sweden to face charges.
Yeah sorry but I know it sounds a little bit Faceman like but sounds fucking suspicious to me.
The sensitive US memos were not released during the one week period between when one prosecutor decided to not press charges and the head prosecutor deciding that they would.
His mum was on News Radio earlier today responding to a story, and that's what she said, one week.
She did say that the first women didn't want to proceed when police started going on about rape charges.
About half way down it goes into detail on the rape allegations.
2) The process by which Assange was accused, cleared, and then re-accused of these incidents beggars belief. Two women went to a Stockholm police station one Friday afternoon in August 2010, to either (and here accounts vary) report Assange for s-xual misconduct, or inquire as to how he could be forced to take an STI test. Only one woman, Sofia Wilen, gave a statement, saying that the morning after a s-xual encounter with Assange, he had initiated s-x while she was asleep, and without a condom; by her own testimony, she said that she then gave consent to continue the act.
3) While her statement was being given, police had already contacted a prosecutor to issue an investigation warrant for arrest. When Wilen was informed of this, she refused to sign her own evidence statement, saying that she had been pushed into making a complaint by people around her. The next day, the senior prosecutor for Stockholm rescinded the warrant, saying that there was nothing in the statement suggesting a crime had occurred.
4) By Monday, that decision had been appealed, with the two women now represented by Claes Borgstrom, a big wig in the Social Democratic party, and drafter of the 2005 s-x crimes laws under which Assange was being accused — laws that many had said were unworkable. The second complainant in the affair, Anna Ardin, now changed her story. She had been interviewed the day after Wilen had told of a rough but consensual s-xual encounter with Assange, but suggested he had torn a condom off during s-x.
Seems pretty suspicious. They still haven't filed actual charges, it's just allegations, yet they've also issued a interpol 'red notice' to get him back to Sweden. Gaddafi, accused of war crimes, earned only an "orange notice".
diplomatic immunity does not apply to the cars in this instance. police can stop the cars, search them, and arrest anyone who is not covered by a diplomatic passport, I.E. Assange.
sounds bogus to me. immunity attracts to official diplomatic appointments and the embassy is considered sovereign soil. assange has no immunity only the right to claim assylum.
he hasn't even been charged with anything in sweden.
his 'case' is sitting before a grand jury in america which will determine if he is going to be sent to america
just a joke all round, for republishing something someone else stole...
where is the rendition for the editors of all the newspaper to republished the republishing?
"We must be absolutely clear this means that, should we receive a request for safe passage for Mr Assange, after granting asylum, this would be refused,"
Holy shit... That is crazy stuff from the british officials
this is soo.. i don't even know. clearly trumped up charges, Australia completely abandons its own citizen, Britain is about to violate international law by invading Ecuador's embassy (an act that if done to the US or Britain would bring the full force of the military to bare) all because his site PUBLISHED, not hacked anything, PUBLISHED some content that a US solider leaked..
and you people actually believe US/UK/AU governments are any better than anything in the middle east.. pfft..
hey lets go bomb/sanction another country cause they impede on peoples rights..
The letter said: “You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy....
Such actions would be a blatant disregard of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and of the rules of international law of the past four centuries.
I think it's a really poor move by Ecuador. Their only position can be that they are doing the 'moral right' but seriously? C'mon. Have a look at Ecuador! It's a country rife with corruption.
Sounds like the plot to a future Bond flick - MI6 is poised to rapel into the Ecuadorian embassy and snatch Assange while the South Americans are looking the other way. Car chase to the docks, then Daniel Craig gets told off by Judi Dench after Assange nips away in a sleek submersible.
by going public the ecuadorian government are attempting to drum up international support for the sovereignty of their embassy and cement the vienna convention.
The bit that is missing (from my recollection) is how in order to get him on the plane they had groups of Israelis traveling multiple times in advance being rowdy and drunk, one sometimes being supported by the others under the guise of having drunk too much. The did this for a few days and then they dragged Eichmann along on one trip, heavily drugged, as though he was just one of them who'd had too much to drink.
Pretty effective method of smuggling someone onto an aircraft.
How stupid does the British Government look ?
America must have been pushing hard, its obvious they want him but were trying to play it low key in order to get him to Sweden.
If Ecuador didnt know they do now.
Britain arent going to raid an Embassy.
They arent that stupid.
this is soo.. i don't even know. clearly trumped up charges, Australia completely abandons its own citizen, Britain is about to violate international law by invading Ecuador's embassy (an act that if done to the US or Britain would bring the full force of the military to bare) all because his site PUBLISHED, not hacked anything, PUBLISHED some content that a US solider leaked..
and you people actually believe US/UK/AU governments are any better than anything in the middle east.. pfft..
hey lets go bomb/sanction another country cause they impede on peoples rights..
Its not the first time that Australia has abandoned its own citizenry:
When the shit hit the fan in Iceland they rolled their parliament with a population of 315,000, We've got 22 million. That's more than the Australian Capital territory which has the same population as Iceland: 385,000 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_territories_of_Australia
* Sacked their parliament * Arrested parliament and the banker dude. * Rerolled their Constitution, like _ a _ fucking _ boss. * Now they acknowledge Palestine.
Disarmed, drunked up, messed up, fucked up and in the middle of no where.
Assange publishes information in a timely manner and not just the IRAQ war diaries, there has been other stuff.
I don't know what to make of my own country. I hear things about 'The Australian "Fair Go" '; 'The Aussie Battler" and "Batting for the Underdog" but my fucking god my country. Phwoar. I swear sometimes. What is it going to take? China breathing down our neck? Philippines going "Uh guys China/Malaysia/whoever has taken our land and you're next."
Yeah it's pretty poor, to be honest I wouldn't expect anything from the Australian government - when have they ever done anything other then server their own interest?
I am actually pretty surprised the UK is acting this way, they traditionally are much more for the people and fair - seems we're all but pawns of the US now.
The guy that wrote the book on Julian, who was scheduled to meet him again around the time he ducked in to the embassy, was on The Drum ast night, saying he thinks that he'll want to come back to Australia, and the implications for our politicians are huge.
He also put to rest rumours that Julian had already been snuck out of the embassy, saying he'd spoken to him and someone he trusted sighted him in the embassy at that time (several weeks ago).
I know an easy way he can get away. Just send in some make-up guys from the movies and do him up to look like someone else. Then he can casually just walk out of the embassy and go somewhere else. That's what I'd be doing.
the smart move by UK would be to Let Assange disappear into Ecuador and let Sweden try and pressure them for Assange instead. after all, the British people have no interest in persecuting Assange, they're only asking to capture him because he is in their land, if he wasn't it wouldn't be their problem anymore?
the UK paid by US move? Get Assange at all costs before he gets away to difficult states.
Mr Robertson speculated on how Ecquador might give Julian Assange diplomatic immunity, saying that even putting him in a 'diplomatic bag' to take him to the airport probably wouldn't work.
A diplomatic courier is an official who transports diplomatic bags as sanctioned under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Couriers are granted diplomatic immunity and are thereby protected by the receiving state from arrest and detention when performing their work.
It's not out of date legislation, it's actual legislation and in place for a reason - after a British police officer was shot outside of an embassy. Thinking about it the UK's acting to uphold the rule of law, looking at the legalities I think it's Ecuador that are actually circumventing law - you have to admit it's not quite right to seek political asylum in order to escape rape allegations. Regardless of the possible ulterior situation, i.e. America.
Ok, but what's not clear to me is that Assange has not been charged in Sweden. Can you extradite someone who has not been charged? If it's just 'allegations' get him on the phone - you don't need to drag his arse to Sweden.
Ok, but what's not clear to me is that Assange has not been charged in Sweden. Can you extradite someone who has not been charged? If it's just 'allegations' get him on the phone - you don't need to drag his arse to Sweden.
@Hermitech He's still broken the law though.. should he be treated any differently? No. He's already had two high court appeals in the British courts. (This is the UK's view). Plus it's bad press for the UK, allegedly rape some women or *insert crime* , come to London, then hide out in Syria's embassy and you're sweet bro.
Does anyone not think that maybe part of what he has done was irresponsible and maybe not ethical? Do any of you believe that it is ok for everyday people to expose government secrets by illegal means?
Just saying. I have no great opinion on the man one way or another, but I had to draw that point up as I am interested to hear some feedback.
There is a difference between unethical and illegal.
I think what he did was unethical but it seems clear to me that the law is very sparse in this area and it is very much in hot debate whether he broke a law. Essentially, the laws in this area need revision.
What is clear is that people like Manning did break the law. Now what happens to the information they have leaked after breaking the law? There doesn't seem to be much of a precedent on that.
Does anyone not think that maybe part of what he has done was irresponsible and maybe not ethical? Do any of you believe that it is ok for everyday people to expose government secrets by illegal means?
last i checked, a US soldier leaked the info, Wikkileaks published it. What did he do that's illegal? how is that any different to someone leaking documents to mainstream media and they in turn blast it all over TV..
oh i know.. in this case many governments mainly the US got very embarrassed by it.. nothing that was published involved current military deployments or anything that could really endanger soldiers lives.. AFAIK anyway..
"Illegal" is simply defined by the government of the jurisdiction in which the offence occurred. The question as the extraterritorial (pertaining to conduct outside the country's geographical boundary) nature of an offence is itself highly debatable, especially with the internet nowadays.
Where did Mr Assange allegedly commit the offence of leaking secret documents and does the US have enough evidence to directly connect him to the offence (compare the P2P cases). If he was outside the US at the time he published the documents how can he have committed an offence in the US? They are not alleging a war crime against him and they have not declared him an enemy combatant...
As to his alleged illegal conduct to case, the case itself as I understand it is quite weak. The evidence I heard as summarised wouldn't even make a prima facie case to get pasty a commital. I doubt that the alleged conduct in the rape case is sufficient to trigger the UK legislation permitting entry of an Embassy simply because it is such a significant violation of international law otherwise.
However, that does not give Mr Assange protection outside the Embassy and the UK could arrest him and even if there is not basis by then he is in their custody and liable to extradition even though it is a gross abuse of process. Why he was ever in the UK in the first place is beyond me, he should be living in some lawless country where he can bribe off the officials.
You can be arrested as a matter of any law enforcement, and that may include a request from another country with which you have an extradition treaty. That is why Assange had the High Court action trying to contest that the UK did not have sufficient grounds to use their extradition powers. But he lost those actions then sough asylum.
When Sweden issued its European Arrest Warrant, judges in the UK granted Julian Assange bail on strict conditions while the case was being considered.
Julian Assange breached that bail by entering the embassy, making him liable for arrest. The Met is maintaining its position that it will arrest him as soon as it can.
The UK Foreign Office said it remained committed to reaching a "negotiated solution" but following its obligations under the Extradition Act, it would arrest Mr Assange if he left the embassy.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said there was "no legal basis" to allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the country and warned that the case could go on for a "considerable" time.
In a statement issued after the Ecuadorean decision, Mr Hague said that Britain was under a "binding obligation" to extradite him to Sweden.
"It is important to understand that this is not about Mr Assange's activities at Wikileaks or the attitude of the United States of America. He is wanted in Sweden to answer allegations of serious sexual offences," Mr Hague added.
The UK are actually just upholding their legally binding extradition treaty, he's broken UK laws by not complying. He had two appeals with the British high courts about the extradition and lost - which one might argue other countries wouldn't have allowed at all.
nothing that was published involved current military deployments or anything that could really endanger soldiers lives.. AFAIK anyway..
Wikileaks initially (in 2010) published a very small number of redacted cables in cooperation with major international newspapers including the New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel. That showed a large amount of restraint and I'd consider it much more ethical than just dumping the entire set of documents out there on the internet. Later in 2011 on some Guardian nitwit fumbled by publishing the encryption passphrase to the entire document cache in a book so Wikileaks went ahead and published everything unredacted because the information was effectively out there anyway.
Ecuador could simply appoint him an Ambassador for Ecuador. once he is an diplomatic agent of the Government he enjoys all diplomatic immunity - and Ecuador would be all like FU MATE.
The "molestation" claim is apparently around a condom that split during sex.
I remember reading somewhere that the broken condom that the ladies brought along as "evidence" that he had broken it in her had no traces what so ever of having been used before it was taken to the cops.
The Australian embassy in Washington is taking seriously the possibility Assange could eventually be extradited to the US on charges including espionage and conspiracy relating to the release of classified information by WikiLeaks, Fairfax newspapers report.
Well that doesn't sound good...
Wonder if our government will change their mind, or keep on not caring about it all.
to me, if sweden really honestly wanted to pursue the charge, and that was all they were honestly after they would put some protection against julian been sent to the US (which to me seems to be the whole issue)
to me, if sweden really honestly wanted to pursue the charge, and that was all they were honestly after they would put some protection against julian been sent to the US (which to me seems to be the whole issue)
cept that goes against their constitution or something apparently.
I know, but that seems to be the only sticking point
I know that the charge is rape, (as defined by Sweden's justice system, maybe not we might think of rape) as far as I know the sex was consensual but then it becomes grey
""Sweden’s definition of legal rape includes the idea of ’unlawful coercion’, which involves exerting emotional pressure on someone to have sex. In other words, talking someone into bed. A man in Assange’s position of wealth and power would be particularly vulnerable to this form of ’rape’, which carries a possible four-year sentence, because it could be argued that his status allowed him to exert an inordinate level of influence.""
Ecuador could simply appoint him an Ambassador for Ecuador. once he is an diplomatic agent of the Government he enjoys all diplomatic immunity - and Ecuador would be all like FU MATE.
I read in an article somewhere that the UK still has to approve any diplomatic appointments before they legally become diplomats in the country, and that obviously they would not in this case.
The other South American Countries are getting in behind the Eccys.
Its become bigger than Assange now.
Britain already has some problems in South America a couple of Countries wont allow British ships in because of the Falklands controversy, South American Countries are supporting Argentinas claims.
PM
WWW
