Forum:Assange and Ecuador

Can somebody tell me what the fuck is Britain doing? Assange's argument for not going to Sweden was that he wouldn't be tried for rape, but rather be re-routed to the US and given the Manning treatment.

He can say that with some seriousness now. Osaka Sun (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out the US were leaning on the UK to bring an end to this standoff and get assange into the legal system, so they can get their paws on him. IIRC one of the girls making the rape claims has already been proven to have links to the CIA. The whole thing stinks of butthurt. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 13:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not in a position to keep a close eye on this but I saw it on the BBC site earlier and was disturbed by the implications. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that this was the result of pressure from across the pond. I expect that the relevant civil liberties groups will kick up a fuss over this and hope the government gets sand kicked in its face. Генгис^{Gum disease} 14:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What? Assanges argument was bogus from day one; it'd probably be easier for the US to get the UK to extradite him than it would be from Sweden... Get Assange into the legal system? Which legal system? He already is in the British one, for starters, and in the Swedish. And what stinks of Butthurt? Huh? I wish anything you said made any sense... :/ Dendlai (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dendlai, the UK has threatened to raid an embassy. Doing nothing would have made him extradited faster at this point.

They're being motivated by something. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they threatened to raid the embassy; which makes no sense and wont happen. Just grandstanding at uppity Ecuador (who is probably just doing this out of.. contrariness and disliking the UK & US). As I said, if the US wants Assange, sending him to Sweden instead of keeping him in the UK would make it hardeer, not easier. The UK extradition act from 2003 basically says, "I fthe US asks, we will give, including our own citizens, and even if the US offers no proof". The reason the US hasn't done this yet is because they ahven't figured out what crime Assange might be guilty of. Anybody who buys into the idea that the extradition to Sweden is a step to getting him to the US is deluded, and knows nothing about UK or Swedeish laws regarding extradition to foreign countries. Dendlai (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And normally I can spell... Dendlai (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because technically he hasn't committed a crime in the UK, so they can't send him to the US. Or something. In addition, I don't think the UK extradite if there's a possibility the person could face the death penalty. However, to threaten to violate an Ecuadorian embassy over an Australian, wanted in Sweden, for a crime likely dreamed up by the US, whose secret e-mails the Australian leaked, sounds a bit strange to me. If you remember Panama and Noreiga, this has the US's fingerprints all over it. --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 14:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would he have to have commited a crime in the uk to be extradited to the US?AMassiveGay (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

How sure are you about those "links to the CIA"? Bear in mind that the "sex by surprise" law was entirely fabricated by Assange's publicist. ^postate 14:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The 2003 extradition act means it doesn't matter if he's committed a crime in the UK or not, or even something that's considered a crime in the UK. You should read it. Hence why Assange might be extradited from the UK, even if he's broken no UK law or done anything illegal in the UK. And Swden can't extradite if they face the death penalty either. In fact that's been the case with Swedish extraditions far longer than for UKs... And crime likely dreamt up by the US? *sigh* you know nothing in the case that hasn't gone through bad translations and pro-Assange media, do you? Richard O'DwyerChristopher_TappinDendlai (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you getting your knickers in a twist for? The fact remains that whatever all the other crap going on, for the UK to threaten another embassy goes beyond the pale and they're probably doing it at the behest of the US. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 15:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists do that to me sometimes. It's a failing in me; I think they can be educated and change their minds with rational facts. Dendlai (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing raises the question - if the police are allowed to kick in the door of an embassy to go after a possible criminal then why did no one break into the Libyan embassy after the murderer of Yvonne Fletcher? Bad Faith (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the US of A had no interest in PC Fletcher or her killers. Now, if she'd been a US citizen. Likewise, if Zimbabwe had oil instead of tobacco, Mugabe would be long gone. --PsyGremlin^Tal! 15:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because the powers that would permit the UK to revoke the status of the Ecuadoran embassy were only enacted after, and in response to, the Libyan embassy killing. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem is you have no evidence the US is involved in any way. It just comes off as conspiracy fueled rumor mongering without any factual basis.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the bigger difference is that Julian Assange is NOT a representative of Ecuador and has no Diplomatic immunity. He used the British Justice System until he lost and then fled bail (officially becoming a wanted criminal again in Britain) and then fled to the Ecuador Embassy to Asylum (Ironically, a country whose press oppression is so bad, a newspaper editor had to flee the country to avoid jail/execution). Britain has the legal duty to extradite Assange (through treaties and international law). Assange is not a political prisoner, he's a fugitive from a perfectly legitimate legal system. I hope the British police storm the fuck out of that embassy. This is the most blatant abuse of diplomatic immunity since Lethal Weapon 2 SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just one problem with that plan. "Storm the fuck out of" and "embassy" usually don't go well with each other. ^{d hominem} 18:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with you, but when a country violates the diplomatic spirit of Embassy immunity to knowingly help a fugitive evade the host country's justice system with no more reason than "we have no evidence, and it flies in the face of logic, but we're pretty darn sure the United States is gonna go all Voldemort and torture and execute him," It's time for action. Embassies and the immunities granted are international courtesies, not inherent rights. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 18:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And start a war? Assange isn't a murderer. All he did was release a bunch of files and (might) have had unconsentual sex. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering, under the terms of the law, Britain has to give them at least 7 days notice.... They would hardly have the justification to go to war. Not to mention, I doubt that's a fight Ecuador is champing at the bit to start. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 defines what land constitutes as an embassy. If applied in this situation, it will compromise the VCDR. The experts think it's stupid. You're the only one here that differs in this opinion. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

One news article does not constitutes the "Experts" but that is neither here nor there. The fact is, The British police will be unlikely to actually storm the embassy because unless Ecuador plans to land a Harrier on the embassy grounds, Assange will have to set foot on British soil before leaving the country. However, he (Assange) has revealed his true colors: he's a coward, a hypocrite and a liar and I'm glad he's gonna finally get his. PS, I don't care if I'm "the only here who differs" in opinion, that's what debate is all about. The majority is not always right. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum yada yada. If you don't think AP would publish that without checking the sources then contact them yourself. And if Assange is proven innocent you might have to take that back (and the same for the rest of us if otherwise). Osaka Sun (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So you make a statement implying I'm obviously wrong because nobody agrees with me, then dismiss me when I point out that your argument is flawed? I don't doubt that the former government lawyer quoted repeatedly in the article said everything he's quoted as saying. I'm saying that one AP article does not indicate unanimous agreement. Even if Assange is perfectly innocent of everything he was originally charged with, he's now guilty of bail jumping and attemtping to flee the country, so either way, he's got a long time in jail ahead of him. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 20:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I disagree with you is that the UK should storm the embassy. The legal precedent will be difficult. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

edit button #7

Ok, I know "And you guys call yourselves RationalWiki" is a cliche around here, but really? The U.S. is conspiring with the UK and Sweden to extradite Assange from the UK to Sweden on sex charges so that the U.S. can then extradite him to the U.S. to face charges relating to Wikileaks? Instead of just, you know, extraditing directly from the UK in the first place? Dendlai has pointed out any number of problems with this theory. To add a bit more, this scenario has the U.S. pressuring the UK to possibly violate international law to get Assange extradited to a country whose government, judiciary, public, and extradition rules are much less friendly to the U.S.. Sweden is hardly anti-American, but its hardly a U.S. patsy, either (remember the whole neutrality thing in WWII and the Cold War?) The UK, by contrast, is one of the U.S.'s closest allies. Not to mention that Assange doesn't even face any charges in the U.S. That could be because the U.S. is holding and indictment until they can "trap" him, but more likely it's because he probably hasn't actually violated any U.S. laws. Under U.S. law, it's not actually illegal for a private third party to release classified information - the Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that the U.S. government can't even legally stop classified information from being published. And the idea that Assange might face the death penalty in the U.S. is either ignorant or hysterical hyperbole. No civilian has been executed for espionage in the U.S. since the Rosenbergs in the '50s - and they were convicted of treason, during the Cold War, for allegedly giving the Soviets the secrets to the atom bomb. Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, and who was a U.S. citizen and a DoD employee actually covered by non-disclosure laws, was never even convicted of anything. This whole "U.S., UK, and Sweden are in cahoots against Assange" idea doesn't "just come off as conspiracy fueled rumor mongering without any factual basis", it is conspiracy fueled rumor mongering without any factual basis. P.S. from the coverage I've seen, the idea that the UK is threatening to storm the Ecuadoran embassy seems to be coming almost entirely from the Ecuadoran foreign minister. If it is true, that would seem to be a violation of international law, and a Bad Thing.209.188.39.67 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

BoN, the times have changed. Ellsberg himself has been decrying whistleblower treatment in the age of PATRIOT and multiple American politicians have called for Assange's head. Bradley Manning's detainment has been mired by human rights violations.

If I were Julian I'd go back Sweden and clear my name. The Brits just made it a little more complicated. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Assange's sin was in revealing the Obama administation's humanitarian aid to Libyan rebels went to al-Qaeda operatives. He has no friends in Washington. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I love about you Rob. No matter how contentious our discussions get, you always step in and add that taste of crazy that flavors our dealings. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 20:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

But is it a sour or a bitter flavor? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still amazed that nobody here is surprised that the charges against Assange came out about 2 days after the whole US document leak thing happened. Why do you think Sweden are refusing to "interview" him - after all, that's their excuse for wanting him extradited; to "interview" him, not put him on trial - in the embassy. Ecuador offered them access, but they said no. Why is Australia frantically doing nothing? I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, but it's pretty fucking obvious that Assange has been set up here, in order to get him to sit alongside Manning. I mean I can understand the Brits storming the embassy, if he'd shot a policewoman from inside it, but to arrest somebody wanted on a warrant from another country? Come on! --PsyGremlin話しなさい 09:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Psy on this. Me and my partner had a rather spirited debate over it, since she felt that any suggestion that the rape allegation was being used as a tool against Assange for his network of international leakism is an attempt to trivialize/discredit rape allegations generally. Yes, rape is trivialized, which in my view actually supports the point that it's being used to snare Assange. Governments don't threaten to storm embassies to capture people for alleged rape of an "ordinary" (i.e. not the daughter or wife of a rich white guy) woman - it's just not that important to them. Sweden's refusal to co-operate with the Ecuadorians on access for an interview only heightens my suspicions.

Yes, it is strange that the US is leaning of Sweden rather than just going straight to the British, but there is some sense to it. The British government has suffered a lot of domestic political fallout in recent years for unquestioning obedience in extraditing people to the US where they have consequently suffered what would be seen as abuse in Europe, but is standard in the US. British authorities would keen to avoid direct association with this again, and so persuaded to the US to go through a third country with "European standards" of justice and detention, and which is within the EU (which makes extradition easy)- Sweden. One doesn't need to be a loony conspiracy theorist to see that the timings of the allegations surfacing, the very interesting associations of Ardin, and the unprecedented interest of Britain in pursuing someone accused of rape in a third country (this in a nation, where less than 10% of cases result in successful conviction) - to the extent of threatening to storm the embassy of a peaceful fourth country - is less about bringing an individual rape case to court than it is about ensnaring someone who gave serious butthurt to the American government, which is now seeking to return to the favour. -- 11:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

and Psy's post too. Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. With all of the geopolitical implications, and the extraordinary nature of each individual event, it's amazing to me that anyone out there actually thinks this was ever about rape. If we're going to deride anything of being a 'conspiracy theory', it should be the idea that countries move in such significant ways over concern for criminal charges. Assange is smart enough to know that the only thing saving him from ending up either dead or in a detainment cell for the rest of his life is his status as a public, polarizing figure. American guns, assassins (sorry, CIA operatives), bombs, and drones have killed plenty of people for far less than what he's done. A couple notes to add to the discussion:

Sweden's involvement: It's hard to characterize historically non-aligned Sweden as playing realpolitik like the US does. And indeed, Sweden is arguably more serious about prosecuting sex crimes than anywhere else on earth. But, since the end of the Cold War Sweden has relaxed it's attitude toward staying out of world politics. Some of their more recent endeavors (the bombing in Libya especially) have a lot to do with the Moderate party's wish to join NATO. A bit of reading about current Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs (and former Prime Minister) Carl Bildt says a lot as well.

Ecuador's involvement: This isn't surprising at all. Latin and South American countries know firsthand how relations between states really work, and Assange and Wikileaks represent the best way out there right now to bring that kind of information to light. If Ecuador didn't move, I'm sure Nicaragua, Bolivia or Venezuela would have instead. Q0 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to extradite Assange to the US to shut him up, sitting in a cell in Sweden for two years and being a proven rapist (a.k.a. persona non grata) would suffice. But Psy is right, the timeline stinks. You begin leaking stuff and just a short while later out of nowhere come up to women saying you raped them? That stinks. Even if it's true, that stinks. Nontheless shutting up Assange won't stop the leaks in any way, if anything the leaks will increase as a revenge tactic.

The bigger problem is with this embassy ordeal. Does anybody here think Ecuador would still have an embassy in the United Kingdom after that? Hell, they'd close it down and throw the Brit out of Quito. But that's not even the worst part. Ecuador is a member of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, initiated by Venezuela's Chavez who's a political nutjob but also the president of on oil rich country. It's completely plausible they'd have embargo's on the UK, Sweden or the United States, after all, their territory was attacked, and rather sell to China than these three, that would result in oil prices going up because of temporary shortages, and the international economy could take a hit. Far out there? Think about what petty games went down during the Cold War. Not to mention that this would further split Europe, as half of Europe is already a) cheering that man on b) pissed at the United States c) agreeing with Assange's politics. --Rutherford (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh this is just hilarious. So hilarious. Saying UK don't wanna extradite to the US because of saving face basically, and then saying Sweden would be happy to break its laws (which it'd have to do to extradite Assange to the US; there's no possible way to build a case for it happening legally). Saying extradition would be "easy" because its a EU country shows you don't know anything about the process. And thinking the current goverment would want to do it to suck up to the US and joining NATO.. Extraditing Assange would make sure they'd losse the next election badly, and any chance of Sweden joining NATO would disappear for the foreseeable future, public opinion would swing so hard against it. This is kinda like reading FreeRepublic about Obama. It's all insane, and they don't know crap, but they are so serious about it... Makes me wonder if you people are just trolling by now? (and regarding the embassy thing... It was merely mentioned as a possible legal option, and then others blew it out of proportion. Nobody talks about how Uruguay is abusing asylum, to help Assange escape common justice. Seems like tit for tat). Dendlai (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So the timing of the rape charges, and the ongoing DDoS attacks on Wikileaks are what? Coincidence in your book? Sure. --PsyGremlin^Sermā! 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been dragging out over such a long time frame now that "coincidence" isn't entirely unlikely. ^sshole 15:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Timing of the rape charges? Let's see the timeline of Wikileaks and the rape charges. Wikileaks had been a pain in the butt for quite some time. So, finding somthing of a timing with some event wouldn't be that unlikely, really. It's a bit like the illuminati trilogy, where they show that if you look hard enough, you see connections everywhere. Lemme ask you: You still think the US would want Assange extradited to Sweden, where he'd be unreachable to them, or in the UK? None of you have exactly managed to show what this conspiracy is for. The crimes he's charged with in Sweden are a) Unlikely to lead to a conviction. Sex crimes are usually word against word, so the perpetrator usually walks free and b) wouldn't land him a very long time in jail. So. What is this conspiracy for? Dendlai (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Assange's name is getting dragged through the mud (rightfully or wrongly), which I imagine the US aren't losing much sleep over. But, it's also in Assange's best interest to keep this going because it gets him so much publicity. I would say a more plausible conspiracy is that Assange is intentionally dragging it out for free publicity, and if he can successfully goad the UK police into raiding a fucking embassy (he's already got them to seriously consider it and openly threaten it) then the entire anti-authority movement that uses him as a posterboy is quids in. Meanwhile, those who don't particularly like WikiLeaks don't have to do anything except hope that Assange doesn't come out of this smelling of roses, because if they were to do something (like raiding a fucking embassy) that would just drum up support for him. It's simply not in their best interests to actively attack a figurehead like this. ^sshole 15:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This I can actually see. Because Assanges actions makes no sense, at least if he's innocent. Then he could have cleared this up quickly. It's not even certain it'd have gone to a trial. If he's guilty.. More or less the same thing really. He's making it seem like he is guilty though, since that's the only sane reason he wouldn't want to be extradited to Sweden... That and publicity. Dendlai (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You want a timeline? Ok:

From August to November, Assange had already been questioned by Swedish police and the prosecutors had said there was no likely rape case.

In November, Wikileaks starts to publish the cables

Suddenly, Assange is charged with rape, and Sweden insist that his lawyers were notified he was going to be charged on 27 Sep, the day Assange left Sweden.

Still think it's a coincidence?

I'm not saying Assange is innocent. I am saying that somebody is going to an awful lot of trouble to get their hands on him. I wonder how many other accused rapists the UK has extradited in the last 10 years? Or how many embassies they've threatened to storm? --PsyGremlin^Hable! 15:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And I am saying you don't know how the Swedish legal system works. The planning it'd take, and the ammount of people that would have to be involved is absolutely staggering for it to have been a conspiracy, the risks would be enormous. And Sweden has several different degrees of Sexual assault, so saying rape isn't exactly right. And the prosecutor the first time only dropped the more severe charge, leaving the other one open for preliminary investigation. And Psy, don't you see that you've kept moving the goalposts this entire time, just to be able to say "It's a conspiracy!". You remind me of a certain Andy, so steadfastly clinging fast to your beliefs in the face of reality. Dendlai (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Playing the Andy card doesn't win you arguments. And there doesn't have to be huge planning - one phone call to the Swedish minister of Justice, who calls the attorney general (or whatever they have). Show me one other case where countries have gone to these lengths to get an accused rapist, who's only wanted to for an "interview". And are you willing to insist that if Assange goes to Sweden, he won't end up trial in the US? --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 15:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparison to Schlafly has been made. Argument is officially OVER. ^theist 15:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, what can you do when somebody who doesn't know a subject (Swedish legal system and bureacracy) tries to tell somebody who does how things happened...? "One phone call" oh my :) Dendlai (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And what lengths? All this time exact standard procedure has been followed. If it had been done differently, something would have been suspect. But it's been done exactly as it always is... Dendlai (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"US in pursuit of Assange, cables reveal." "AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is still gunning for Julian Assange, according to Foreign Affairs Department documents obtained by The Saturday Age." But no, it's all to do with Sweden. --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dog Bites Man, everybody knows the US is after Assange. And yeah, how would this be connected to the US? All you've got by now is "I think it looks suspicious, but can't explain why". You say something, I point out that that's not actually reality, you move the goalpost. Unless you still maintain it'd be easier to extradict Assange from Sweden than from UK, heh? Dendlai (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder, Dendlai, if you would be willing to apply the same standard to the other side of this story. You claim over and over again that people are pushing a conspiracy theory, but meanwhile you completely ignore all of the big actors and their disproportionate responses to what - even you admit - are lesser-degree rape charges (and not even prosecutable in most countries). You're basically saying that it is a completely ordinary case, no matter who the accused was - that it's normal for a second prosecutor to step in after an initial arrest warrant was withdrawn, and without any additional evidence say the exact opposite of what the first prosecutor said, and finally get Interpol involved to try and track down some guy who may have had consensual sex with two women that later turned into unconsensual sex. Oh, and in the middle of all this, conveniently deny his application for residency with no reason given. You expect us to believe this is normal, because of your claim that you know more about the Swedish legal system and its bureaucracy than we do. See, at face value, 'this is the one that sounds like the conspiracy theory.

You seem more than willing to accept that Assange might be extending the ordeal for publicity (something I agree with), so why would it come as a huge surprise to you if the other players were playing their games as well? Why would it be so crazy to suspect the US to be involved in trying to ruin Assange's image, when American leaders openly call for his extradition, prosecution under the Espionage Act, branding as a terrorist, or even assassination? Are we so naive to think that this type of thing has never happened before? When we talk about Ellsburg, do we ignore the fact that the primary 'defense' against him was to assault his character, fabricate lies, and even break the law to try and get access to his medical records? The sad part it, Assange needs to face the charges against him, but it will probably never happen thanks to the geopolitical games being played here.

By the way, for those interested, here is a decent timeline of events. Q0 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The responses aren't dispoportionate. That's the point. They didn't get interpol involved per se. Once he was wanted, he automatically got on a list that went to Interpol, and then the British chaps said "Oh we know where he is. He's kinda public". See, you used the words "Pushed to have interpol involved", when there was no pushing. It was normal bureaucracy at work which always happen in a situation like that. The reason it seems big is all the media attention, and his decision to challenge it. And denying his residency... It's not like that was unexpected, he hardly had any claims for them. He seemed to think "I'm fucking Julian Assange, they'll love to have me here!". As for ruining his image... ALL that was needed to start all this, is for the girls to have been in it and falsely accuse him. That's all. What came after happened pretty much on autopilot. And again, why would the US and UK push for Assange to be extradicted to Sweden? Worst case, he's actually found guilty, it'd be a few months, maybe a year, in jail. And then he'd be off again. It wouldn't tarnish his name any more or less than it already is. People have already decided his guilt or innocence. Nobody seems to be able to explain what the US, UK and Sweden has to win by this course of action. (Sweden extradiction him to the US is off the table. If it happened it'd be against the constitution and wreck the parties involved. At the same time, read the 2003 UK extradiction act. Why do they want him out of a country where they can easily get him? Dendlai (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if Assange could get safe passage from the embassy to the airport, what would stop somebody from getting behind him with a lazer guided ricin blowdart? It is longway for EMTs from Ecuador, and it's doubtful they could make it on time in an emergency situation. Bottoline: Assange is just an idiot who thought he could take on the world governments. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, because heads of state are evil conspiracy-meisters who thirst for revenge over embarrassing but not overly devastating information getting out. One man make a difference? Ha! The evil conspiracy-meisters laugh. But What's that got to do with the price of fish?

C®ackeЯ 19:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Assange is not needed to answer for his alleged lawbreaking, but rather to be made an example of. Laws exist for a reason, and people can't willy-nilly pick and choose which laws they care to abide by. Now, in the U.S., Britain's Official Secrets Act is regarded as heavy handed, and American's simply would not tolerate a loss of Constitutional Rights such an Act would entail. The U.S. has gone in the opposite direction with the FOIA. Then, there is a whole shit-loaded of co-operative sharing agreements between NATO and most other nations that have the force of law -- some of these laws actually do circumvent U.S. Constitutional Rights. And it's not the heads of state or government that feel Assange did them damage, it is the permanent installed bureaucracy, civil service, and militaries that constantly feel threatened by a naive asshole, egotist, and crusader like Assange. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"... people can't willy-nilly pick and choose which laws they care to abide by." Bullshit. People do that all the time, and prosecutors willy-nilly pick and choose which laws they wish to enforce in any given case. Similar latitude is taken by law enforcement, i.e. cops on the street. I won't even respond to your laughable invocation of FOIA and Constitutional rights, except to say that the government has an escape hatch, in the form of "state secrets." Say so long to habeas corpus, along with the right to confront one's accuser. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Rosa Parks refusing to give her seat up would be a good example of that. OTH, if a person were in full compliance with the law on tax filing requirements and payment of taxes due, would common decency and a respect for privacy rights apply to someone for simply obeying the law? As to U.S. Constitutional Rights, those were flushed down the toilet as early [as 1938 by Franklin Roosevelt when he allowed a foreign government (Britain) to wiretap American citizens. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 21:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Tax filing requirements? What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see a couple of simple solutions to this problem. One would be, that Britain and Sweden promise Ecuador that Assange will not be extradited to a third country, Assange goes to Sweden, and after the matters there are settled he goes directly to Ecuador. Why won't Britain and Sweden agree to that? Because they have ulterior motives? Another point — supposedly, Assange is just being extradited to be questioned by the prosecutor, they haven't decided to proceed with a prosecution yet. Why can't the Swedish prosecutor come to the Ecuadorean embassy in London to question him? What's the point of extraditing him to Sweden if they haven't even decided yet whether to prosecute? I think the fact that Britain and Sweden so far have shown unwillingness to solve this crisis — despite Ecuador's demonstrated willingness to come to a fair negotiated solution — suggest that Britain and Sweden are acting in bad faith. Zack Martin  23:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So, Julian Assange has acted in good faith, Hillary Clinton should resign as Assange suggests, and the case Eric Holder has prepared against Assange is as bogus as the case House Republicans prepared against Eric Holder? Am I reading this correctly? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 23:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just read the whole thread and I confess I am a little surprised. The easy acceptance of an alleged extreme conspiracy that has absolutely no evidence to support it just astounds me. Particularly in circumstances where it has been pointed out repeatedly that the alleged conspiracy appears to make no sense. This is Rationalwiki isn't it? Let's be rational. How about this theory: Assange just doesn't want to go to Sweden to face sexual assault charges. Now there's a theory that actually makes sense and doesn't require a grand conspiracy of epic proportions to explain it. I don't want to repeat the points already stated above but I find it hard to understand how anyone could be attracted to the utterly unsupported claims being made in support of Assange's actions. He should stand trial like anyone else and stop hiding behind an obvious fiction. Man up Julian. --Horace (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a broader issue here than Assange himself, which is the law of extradition in the UK provides insufficient protections for the accused. Consider the Natwest Three, Gary McKinnon, Richard O'Dwyer, and many others. I think the UK is in urgent need of extradition law reform to make extradition more difficult. I think the UK should explore the French model — France refuses to extradite its own citizens (a rule which would not have benefited Assange, but would have benefited other cases mentioned), but is willing to prosecute them in France for crimes committed in other countries. Zack Martin  04:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a broader issue? I see nothing wrong with the extradition of a man accused of sexual assaults to Sweden. How does the "broader issue" impact on that? Why shouldn't people be extradited to the countries in which they offended? In any case, why was it wrong to extradite the so-called Natwest Three (a name, according to Wikipedia, made up by their PR firm). The question here is not whether the extradition system needs an overhaul. It is why Assange has sought asylum from Equador when faced with the absolutely normal operation of the legal process. The answer, I suspect, is simply because he can. And the reason he can is that he is supported by a large group of people willing to believe anything, anything that confirms their prejudices. Even if it makes no sense in the real world. I have heard many times that reality has a liberal bias. Well, not anymore. Julian has turned the tables. --Horace (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've heard the question a lot "Why can't Sweden interview Assange at the embassy or via phone?" When does that ever happen? Common sense and established international law says that if you are wanted in a country, you have to go to that country to face questioning. The justice system doesn't work via skype. If Swedish prosecutors decide to file charges, do you think Assange is just gonna go "Oh right then, I'll pop round after lunch." They want him in Sweden so he can be arrested if necessary. Furthermore, the Swedish thing is only part of it now. By leaving the country, he has made himself a criminal in the eyes of Britain, so now he has two justice systems that want him. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 08:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd question the claim "established international law says that if you are wanted in a country, you have to go to that country to face questioning". There is no right to extradition under customary international law. It is a creature of (mostly bilateral) international agreements, all of those agreements have clauses permitting unilateral denunciation (see for example article 24 of the 2003 UK-US Treaty, which permits either the US or the UK to cancel the agreement at any time with 6 months notice), and there are many pairs of states between which there are no extradition agreements. While Assange's extradition to Sweden is under EU legislation (the European Arrest Warrant framework decision), that decision could be repealed or amended at any time through the relevant EU procedures. Zack Martin  10:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, another 'I thought this was supposed to be RationalWiki mention. Good stuff.

So, you're not skeptical at all, eh? The rational conclusion then is that Assange just doesn't want to face questioning for rape charges and doesn't actually have any reason to believe the US is after him? You know, beside the fact that the Attorney General has been at the very least publicly looking into prosecuting him; that various political figures in the US have called for him to be either prosecuted or killed; that the CIA is actively working to take down Wikileaks; and that the country has a storied history of taking out opponents to its rule all over the world. And make no mistake, Wikileaks is considered an opponent; it presents a serious threat to the ability of the government to carry out Realpolitik in private, while playing pedestrian politics (shouting "FREEDOM" and "DEMOCRACY") in public.

But it's not just the US. Wikileaks was pissing off other countries by exposing government corruption before it was pissing off America, and the more recent diplomatic cables leak made every country that throws its weight around angry. Do you think those governments want their citizens to know that they run around strongarming weaker countries on a regular basis? The average, good-natured, empathetic person doesn't want to hear that's being done in their name (and on their dollar). Meanwhile, the countries like Ecuador who have been the ones being pushed around for so long are supportive of Wikileaks' efforts, so it's no surprise they would show up. Ecuador's ballsy move is another thing you have to explain away if you believe it's all about avoiding rape charges, by the way. Is Assange manipulating them too? What power he must have to manipulate not just the media, but entire nation states on his very word! Wars have been started over less!

So far, the only big counter to Assange's claims of being extradited to the US is that it's difficult to do so through Sweden. But, from what I can tell the applicable laws require only that the offense be punishable by at least 2 years of jail time if convicted (via US-Sweden extradition treaty and supplement), and not carry the threat of torture or death (via EU laws on human rights). The rest of the decision is up to discretion. Why not do it from the UK? Well, if the Swedish charges were trumped up in the first place (and I'm not claiming they are, only that the timeline and everything is extremely suspicious), the obvious answer is that they had something cooked up with Sweden from the start. Of course this entire argument assumes from the start that things will play out in a completely legal manner, which is a ridiculous assumption in the face of history. In the not-so-immortal words of Henry Kissinger: ‘The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.’ Q0 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ecuador's position has nothing to do with Assange. They are holding out for more Drug War money. The U.S. will give them a fleet of helicopters, pilot and maintenance training, and various support material and training. These are important, high paying, skilled jobs for Central and South American economies. Ecuador feels it's not getting its fair share, and using the extradition treaty as a negotiating tool. Nothing new. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 21:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Q0, regretably the "I thought this was supposed to be Rationalwiki" comment still appears to be apposite.

Firstly, I didn't say that I wasn't skeptical. I am always skeptical. I didn't say that the US wasn't after him (although I think it would be more accurate to say that some in the US are after him - most people probably don't care). As to your comments about the US's history of "taking out" opponents, well, I am not really sure what I am supposed to make of that. Please, please try to stick to the argument that is actually being made, not the one that you imagine is being made.

The point is that there appears to be no logical argument that justifies Assange's action in light of the fact that he is no more likely to be sent to the US from Sweden than from the UK. If you know of such a logical argument, tell us.

I will also comment that all of the discussions that I see where Assange is supported seem to automatically assume that he should not be sent to the US even if it becomes clear that he has broken US law. In my view that aspect should not be assumed and requires some careful examination. The case of the "Natwest three" was raised above, for example. I am uncertain why it is said that they were wrongfully extradited. Extradition to the US is not, of itself, a bad thing in some cases. If Assange has broken US law then there needs to be a serious discussion about whether there is something about that particular law which means that a person should not be extradited to face charges. I have not drawn any conclusions about that because there are no known charges at this stage.

The rule of law is fundamental in our system. The fact that so many appear prepared to casually throw it away in without a careful examination of the underlying logic of the situation is surprising. --Horace (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

One problem with your argument is that Assange is not a US citizen and did not break any laws on US soil, he didn't even hack American computer systems. Why he should he be extradited for trial in the US when the US "unsigned" the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court? What pisses off much of the rest of the world is the desire of the US to extend its own laws on the rest of the world but not allow its own citizens to be held to account elsewhere. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's just pure nonsense. The United States is not seeking extradition of Assange. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: the US and Assange - First of all, public opinion on Assange in the US is meaningless as it stands. Sure, some people don't care. Great. The simple fact is that the American government does care. I honestly don't know what to say if you don't believe that. Similar to how I don't know what to say when Rob claims the US isn't seeking extradition, and sources a Democracy Now segment which shows only a representative of the State Department claiming the US isn't seeking extradition. Might as well ask if they've broken the Geneva Conventions recently. ...at least in Rob's case he's clearly trolling.

Re: no more likely to be sent to the US from Sweden than from the UK - The idea is that the charges are in Sweden, not the UK. If those charges were trumped up as a reason to go after Assange, it's more likely that the US had something in play in Sweden from the start. Apparently, his lawyers also believe they have a better case of fighting extradition in the UK. No, I don't know why. Again, I'm not trying to establish some sort of concrete conspiracy of which I obviously have no evidence for. To explain what is going on it's only necessary to prove that Assange has a legitimate fear for his safety. Beyond that, the timeline and events are too convenient, and the motions from the states involved too large for me to believe that there is nothing beyond some silly story about rape allegations. You just simply can't take things at face value when you're dealing with geopolitics; you're working with but a fraction of the information.

Re: automatically assume that he should not be sent to the US even if it becomes clear that he has broken US law - Given the civilized world's contempt for American laws which not only allow for the arrests of those simply labelled as terrorists or enemies of the state, but for denying those persons due process completely - irregardless of whether or not they are US citizens - it's not hard to see why reasonable people would feel sketchy about sending anyone to face charges there. Add in, you know, torture, and the 'example' set by Bradley Manning, and it should be crystal clear. You just simply don't send people to places where you believe they'll be tortured or killed. We're talking basic human rights here. Q0 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@Genghis - I agree that the US attitude, both to the International Criminal Court and in relation to extending its own laws worldwide, is unfortunate and misguided. The US legal system does not seem to represent any sort of exemplar in comparison to the rest of the common law world so far as I can tell. The attitude appears to be born of nothing more or less than arrogance.

@Rob - Your source doesn't say what you assert it says. Ms Nuland does not say that the US is not seeking Assange. She doesn't even address the issue. Someone with a suspicious mind might conclude that she has worded her statemetn very carefully in order to avoid giving the game away.

@Q0 - If I cannot take things at face value then how am I supposed to make any serious assessment of the situation at all? The man has been dealt with through the UK court system. Is there any suggestion that the UK courts have acted corruptly, perhaps at the behest of the CIA? He is wanted by the Swedish criminal justice system. Is that a corrupt criminal justice system? Are they taking orders from Washington? There is no known reason to suggest that he is more likely to be extradited from Sweden than from the UK. The laws are there for anyone to read. The only actual reason that anyone can point to for his not wanting to go to Sweden to face criminal charges is that he doesn't want to go to Sweden to face criminal charges. For fuck's sake, it is quacking like a duck right in your face.

As for your comments about what I said in relation to automatically assuming he shouldn't be sent to the US, let's wait and see what, if any, charges are laid. Then we can examione what they are and whether they are fair in the circumstances. Although, in the meantime, I would appreciate it if you could tell me the last time someone was extridited from Sweden to the US and faced torture or death as a result. Seriously, get a grip. Even Bradley Manning - the soldier accused of actually obtaining and leaking the documents that seem to have insipred all of this paranoia - has been told by prosecutors that they will not be seeking the death penalty in his case. I am not aware that they have tortured him to date. --Horace (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not very difficult to find information on Manning's treatment. Information was known at least from as early as 2010, and more came out a few months later. Earlier this year, the UN special rapporteur on torture even officially called the conditions "cruel, inhuman and degrading". But read about it and make up your own mind.

Of course, what purpose could they possibly have to torture him? Unless you want to go full-on Orwell here, the only reasonable explanation is that they think he can give them information about Wikileaks. That's a pretty essential piece of the Assange puzzle, if you ask me. Q0 (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have just watched Wag the Dog and now realise that things are not always as they seem on the surface. --Horace (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. Justice Dept. is considering convening a Grand Jury and presenting evidence to secure an indictment (on God knows what charges). Big difference between a Grand Jury indictment and extradition. Meanwhile, the U.S. has taken a wait and see attitude, as winning a conviction in Great Britain under the Official Secrets Act is much more likely than ever getting a conviction for anything in the U.S. Is there collusion among U.K., U.S., and Swedish prosecutors with the hopes of trying and convicting Assange in the venue with the best chances of securing a stiff sentence? Most likely, and this is not uncommon at all, even on a international plane. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 17:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Examples? --Horace (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. Bob Vesco. Augosto Pinocet. Rafael Resendez-Ramirez. Mark Rich. Manuel Noriega. Pablo Escobar. Mark Rich. The Nuremberg War Crimes defendants. Many of these cases involve murder and are too high profile. I'll try to find a less known case of somebody wanted in two countries for serious offenses other than murder. Did I mention Mark Rich? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I like how Nobby was asked to give examples of how the US, the UK and Sweden collaborate with regards to evictions, and he just threw out a number of random names, none of which has any connection to Sweden. And Oh My God, this thread is still alive? Dendlai (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Update

By August, he'll be holed up in the embassy for two years. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)