Julian Assange to issue statement 'in front' of Ecuador embassy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Julian Assange to issue statement 'in front' of embassy haven

Julian Assange faces arrest if he leaves his haven in the Ecuadorean embassy in London to issue a statement on Sunday.
By Martin Beckford, and Rosa Silverman

6:08PM BST 16 Aug 2012

The WikiLeaks founder was granted political asylum by the Latin Americans after its ministers agreed he was facing persecution and the possible death penalty in America. But he remains holed up in the embassy in Knightsbridge, surrounded by police who want to arrest him for breaching his bail conditions.

Last night WikiLeaks said he would give a "live" statement "in front of" the embassy on Sunday, two months since he entered it. He could be seized if it is deemed he has stepped outside the building's diplomatically protected zone.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said the maverick Australian would not be allowed to fly to his newly adopted country and must instead answer rape allegations in Sweden.

It sets the scene for a diplomatic stalemate between London, which said it was “disappointed” by the long-awaited decision, and Quito, which has accused Britain of threatening to storm the building to seize Mr Assange.

The saga has already been going on for almost exactly two years, since Mr Assange was accused of raping and sexually assaulting two women on a visit to Sweden where he was promoting his whistle-blowing website.

He was arrested in London in December 2010 but fought extradition to Sweden all the way to the Supreme Court, fearing it was a pretext for him to be sent to the US where the authorities were incensed by his release of thousands of confidential diplomatic cables.

After Britain’s highest court rejected his last appeal in June, Mr Assange walked into Ecuador’s embassy in London and applied for political asylum. When he refused to come out, he broke his bail terms and so became liable for arrest.

Nearly two months on, on Thursday the Ecuadorian government finally announced that it had agreed to give him asylum because of his fears of persecution over the secret files his whistle-blowing organisation has revealed, which he believes could see him sent to face an unfair trial in America.

There was applause as the foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, made the declaration that Mr Assange had been given “diplomatic asylum” at a press conference in the capital, Quito.

“We believe that his fears are legitimate and there are the threats that he could face political persecution.

“We trust that that the UK will offer as soon as possible the guarantee for the safe passage of asylum for Mr Assange and they will respect those international agreements they have signed in the past.”

But in a statement at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office later in the day, Mr Hague, the Foreign Secretary, ruled this out.

He said: “We are disappointed by the statement by Ecuador’s Foreign Minister today that Ecuador has offered political asylum to Julian Assange.

“Under our law, with Mr Assange having exhausted all options of appeal, the British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. We must carry out that obligation and of course we fully intend to do so.

“We will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the UK, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so.”

He insisted: “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.”

The previous night, the British authorities stepped up the police presence around the embassy and warned Ecuador they could use a rarely-cited law to withdraw the embassy’s diplomatic protection.

This would allow officers to go inside and arrest Mr Assange, a move condemned as “complete intimidation” by Ecuadorian officials.

Ecuador claimed Britain had threatened to “storm” the building, which would have “significant implications” for countries around the world.

In a separate statement, WikiLeaks condemned the “menacing show of force” by police and said any transgression against the “sanctity” of the embassy would be a “shameful act”.

Mr Assange himself said: “I am grateful to the Ecuadorean people, President Rafael Correa and his government. It was not Britain or my home country, Australia, that stood up to protect me from persecution, but a courageous, independent Latin American nation.

“While today is a historic victory, our struggles have just begun. The unprecedented US investigation against WikiLeaks must be stopped.”

Vaughan Smith, who posted bail for Assange and previously offered him sanctuary at his home, Ellingham Hall, in Norfolk, said he was "delighted" with Ecuador's decision "I think it's fantastic," he said. "I can't believe we're really going to enter the embassy (and arrest him). I think that would be disproportionate.

"Maybe now is a good time to reflect and get used to the idea that someone has got political asylum in London.”

A loud cheer rang out from the crowd of noisy supporters who had been gathered outside the embassy all morning to await the decision.

Ecuadorians marched up and down the street chanting "hands off Ecuador", "there's only one decision - no extradition", and "Julian Assange, freedom fighter."

Police lining the street looked on as one supporter shouted into a microphone: "We call on the British Government to do the decent thing. Stop the extradition proceedings against Julian Assange.

"Stop trying to bully everyone. "We agree with the decision of the Ecuadorian government. Ecuador is not a British colony."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ssue-statement-in-front-of-embassy-haven.html
 
This is getting ridiculous. He didn't do anything wrong in the US, Sweden should grow some balls and refuse to deliver him to the US. After that the rape lawsuit can pass so those girls can get the justice they deserve, or Assange can be cleared. I find it to be quite cruel if there was a rape, that those girls can't get justice because of another country.
 
This is getting ridiculous. He didn't do anything wrong in the US, Sweden should grow some balls and refuse to deliver him to the US. After that the rape lawsuit can pass so those girls can get the justice they deserve, or Assange can be cleared. I find it to be quite cruel if there was a rape, that those girls can't get justice because of another country.
The US can and will get you anywhere if they suspect you of spying.
 
This is getting ridiculous. He didn't do anything wrong in the US, Sweden should grow some balls and refuse to deliver him to the US. After that the rape lawsuit can pass so those girls can get the justice they deserve, or Assange can be cleared. I find it to be quite cruel if there was a rape, that those girls can't get justice because of another country.

It's a manufactured threat if we're judging by anything other than unsubstantiated statements from Assange, his lawyers or Ecuador.
 
why does the US still have the death penalty in certain states, thats a question worth answering in this debate
 
This is getting ridiculous. He didn't do anything wrong in the US, Sweden should grow some balls and refuse to deliver him to the US. After that the rape lawsuit can pass so those girls can get the justice they deserve, or Assange can be cleared. I find it to be quite cruel if there was a rape, that those girls can't get justice because of another country.

The US hasn't asked for Assange and Assange can be extradited to the US from UK anyway without being sent to Sweden first. There is nothing in the Swedish extradition treaties that would make it easier for Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US rather than the UK to the US.
 
why does the US still have the death penalty in certain states, thats a question worth answering in this debate

State sovereignty.
 
JPd6I.jpg




I don't agree with this but find it plausible.
 
US hasn't aThe sked for Assange and Assange can be extradited to the US from UK anyway without being sent to Sweden first. There is nothing in the Swedish extradition treaties that would make it easier for Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US rather than the UK to the US.
Assange's argument is that the US have already prepared a trial/jury against him, secretly.
 
Assange's argument is that the US have already prepared a trial/jury against him, secretly.

Then why isn't the US asking extradition from the UK instead? Once again, the US has extradition treaties in both the UK and Sweden... Why would Sweden hand him over but the UK wouldn't? And furthermore, what in the extradition treaties with Sweden would make the extradition process easier for the US?
 
Then why isn't the US asking extradition from the UK instead? Once again, the US has extradition treaties in both the UK and Sweden... Why would Sweden hand him over but the UK wouldn't? And furthermore, what in the extradition treaties with Sweden would make the extradition process easier for the US?
This part really doesn't make any sense. Sweden would not give Assange over US in any situation.
 
Wikipedia has a list of countries with which the US has extradition treaties. Ecuador is on the list. Am I missing some crucial detail of this treaty? I get that they are probably signed with varying terms and conditions, but is there any reason to fear the Swedish one more than the Ecuadoran one?
 
Wikipedia has a list of countries with which the US has extradition treaties. Ecuador is on the list. Am I missing some crucial detail of this treaty? I get that they are probably signed with varying terms and conditions, but is there any reason to fear the Swedish one more than the Ecuadoran one?

I believe Ecuador thinks it's all bogus and just a ploy to get Assange to the UK so he can be shipped off to the US. So, they are offering Asylum.
 
Wikipedia has a list of countries with which the US has extradition treaties. Ecuador is on the list. Am I missing some crucial detail of this treaty? I get that they are probably signed with varying terms and conditions, but is there any reason to fear the Swedish one more than the Ecuadoran one?

Because even though Ecuador is on the extradition treaty list, Ecuador has agreed to grant political asylum to Assange which will override the extradition treaty with the US.
 
Then why isn't the US asking extradition from the UK instead? Once again, the US has extradition treaties in both the UK and Sweden... Why would Sweden hand him over but the UK wouldn't? And furthermore, what in the extradition treaties with Sweden would make the extradition process easier for the US?
Because the UK extradition process allows for more opposition than the Swedish one? (Meaning it would take a lot longer.) Because the English-speaking Assange actually can defend himself against extradition in an English-speaking court? (Meaning it would be easier to dispute it.)
 
Are other accused rapists so vehemently pursued?

Other alleged rapists don't play up their celebrity as a means of triyng to remain free.

I dunno about the charges against him, but he should just go to court and face them. It would have been over by now.
 
The US can and will get you anywhere if they suspect you of spying.

Spying, is that what it's called now?





Oh you mean like trust fund baby Andrew Luster who raped a woman in the US and then fled to Mexico, spent years partying it up in plain sight until it finally took a redneck from Colorado/Hawaii named Dog the Bounty Hunter to actually capture him?
 
Because the UK extradition process allows for more opposition than the Swedish one? (Meaning it would take a lot longer.) Because the English-speaking Assange actually can defend himself against extradition in an English-speaking court? (Meaning it would be easier to dispute it.)

So he has no lawyers that are his counsel in Sweden? He's just stuck trying to learn their language? If UK is going to these lengths JUST for the US, it seems silly that extradition from the UK would be some long hard fought battle.
 
Other alleged rapists don't play up their celebrity as a means of triyng to remain free.

I dunno about the charges against him, but he should just go to court and face them. It would have been over by now.

But his argument is he will be extradited to the USA once he is in Sweden, thus why he doesn't want to go there. Which is fair because Sweden said they won't guarantee that they won't send him there.
 
I'll bet.
At least substantiate your claim a little more than that
Because the UK extradition process allows for more opposition than the Swedish one? (Meaning it would take a lot longer.) Because the English-speaking Assange actually can defend himself against extradition in an English-speaking court? (Meaning it would be easier to dispute it.)
Isn't.Sweden part.of the eu too?
Because if hes afraid for his life or something there's provision that could block the extraction at the eu level.
And how about we get to the differences between uk and Sweden on the process because assange & co aren't exactly reliable on the matter
 
Other alleged rapists don't play up their celebrity as a means of triyng to remain free.

I dunno about the charges against him, but he should just go to court and face them. It would have been over by now.

At this point, he's got no chance of a fair trial. It would instantly become about politics, and the US would love nothing more than to discredit him and lock him up.
 
But his argument is he will be extradited to the USA once he is in Sweden, thus why he doesn't want to go there. Which is fair because Sweden said they won't guarantee that they won't send him there.

Listen, I don't know if the guy is a spy, or how trumped up the charges are.

I just know that he's a douchebag, acting kinda like a doucehbag.
 
Because the UK extradition process allows for more opposition than the Swedish one? (Meaning it would take a lot longer.) Because the English-speaking Assange actually can defend himself against extradition in an English-speaking court? (Meaning it would be easier to dispute it.)
Swedish court would provide translator.

At this point, he's got no chance of a fair trial. It would instantly become about politics, and the US would love nothing more than to discredit him and lock him up.
I actually have faith in Swedish justice system and I would be surprised if they would send him to US. Not to mention it would be political suicide for many politicians over there.
 
But his argument is he will be extradited to the USA once he is in Sweden, thus why he doesn't want to go there. Which is fair because Sweden said they won't guarantee that they won't send him there.

He was in Sweden before and the US didn't have him extradited, right? It's hard for me to imagine the US wants him anymore. The whole leak situation has died down and bringing him in would just flare up the talk about it again.
 
Oh you mean like trust fund baby Andrew Luster who raped a woman in the US and then fled to Mexico, spent years partying it up in plain sight until it finally took a redneck from Colorado/Hawaii named Dog the Bounty Hunter to actually capture him?
Mexico and the US are part of the eu?
 

No, the typical accused rapist is not pursued and given this much attention on an international scale. This is not about rape, but rather about destroying a man's reputation in order to bring him to "justice" by any means necessary for his Wikileaks activities. His story and the known facts make more sense than the claims being made against him.
 
He was in Sweden before and the US didn't have him extradited, right? It's hard for me to imagine the US wants him anymore. The whole leak situation has died down and bringing him in would just flare up the talk about it again.

See, you're thinking rationally. This isn't about that. This is about making an example out of a man in plain site, where everybody can see, and nobody can do anything about it.
 
No, the typical accused rapist is not pursued and given this much attention on an international scale.

That's because they're not famous, and because what's happening isn't on the front page of every newspaper. If it was, they would be.

I actually suspect if this situation involved a famous musician or TV presenter it'd be pretty similar...
 
At least substantiate your claim a little more than that

What claim? I probably came across as being a bit coy, but I was legitimately curious if other accused rapists are similarly hunted. The only response I got was a similarly insubstantial "yes." I am trying to look this up on my own, but if other folks already have some links handy, I'd be most appreciative.
 
That's because they're not famous, and because what's happening isn't on the front page of every newspaper. If it was, they would be.

I actually suspect if this situation involved a famous musician or TV presenter it'd be pretty similar...

You just agreed with me. Thanks.
 
What claim? I probably came across as being a bit coy, but I was legitimately curious if other accused rapists are similarly hunted. The only response I got was a similarly insubstantial "yes." I am trying to look this up on my own, but if other folks already have some links handy, I'd be most appreciative.
As soon as the warrant is valid anyone in his shoes wikileaks or no would face the same problem.
Unless you mean that the warrant is simply not filed then it's another story
 
See, you're thinking rationally. This isn't about that. This is about making an example out of a man in plain site, where everybody can see, and nobody can do anything about it.
Meh, at this point I doubt it. Assange will get send into Sweden, maybe go into trial gets fines and that's it. Whole ordeal will make Assange look like paranoid twat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom