Julian Assange can remain in Ecuador's embassy 'for however long it takes'

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Ecuadorean officials have said that Britain should renounce its "threat" to storm the country's London embassy, and that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could remain inside the building for as long as he wanted – "two centuries" if necessary.

The officials said there had been no contact with the Foreign Office since last Thursday, when Ecuador's president Rafael Correa announced he was granting Assange asylum. Ecuador was keen to resume negotiations with the UK, the officials said, but added that William Hague should now take back a threat to enter the embassy as "an indication of good faith".

Ecuadorean diplomatic sources also insisted there had been no secret deal to grant Assange asylum. They said Assange simply turned up at the front door two months ago "at midday" and rang the bell. The Ecuadorean ambassador, Ana Alban, was forced to dash home to fetch a blow-up mattress for Assange to sleep on. Since he took up residence, the embassy had got a bigger fridge, the sources said.

The UK last week gave a written warning to Quito saying that it could invoke the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 to arrest Assange inside the Knightsbridge embassy. This prompted a furious response from Quito. Hague later clarified that the FCO was not threatening to "storm an embassy". On Thursday, however, an Ecuadorian diplomatic source said: "The threat hasn't been withdrawn."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/23/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy

[Jeneral2885]

1. Nice Ambassador

How many people would do that if a dissident turns up at your door?

Still, I've not an Assange supporter

[1monster]

3. And that's putting it mildly.

[leveymg]

2. The US and UK need to grow up, suck it in, and just let this one go.

Okay, we had our snits and made our points. But, is this really worth creating a major international incident?

[Jeneral2885]

4. it's not the first

incident tthey've created as best friends across the Atlantic.

[pnwmom]

6. This is a matter for Sweden and the UK.

The US doesn't want him to be extradited to Sweden, because it would be harder for the US to extradite him from there. If Sweden gets him, he couldn't be extradited here without the permission of BOTH the UK and Sweden. And Sweden doesn't extradite in political cases.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

“Assange is more likely to be extradited to USA from Sweden than the United Kingdom”
This is similarly untrue. Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. This is because it would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom.

(See Francis FitzGibbon QC’s Nothing Like the Sun for further detail on this.)

One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the NatWest Three.

In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom.

[AntiFascist]

7. Francis FitzGibbon's post is full of crap...

Assange has every right to fear persecution based, if nothing else, on the stolen material from Stratfor, not to mention very public threats about him receiving the death penalty, or at least being prosecuted for espionage, by various Republicans and even some Democrats.

[pnwmom]

8. Regardless, as a practical matter, it would be harder to extradite him from Sweden

than from the UK. It's ridiculous to keep pretending that the US is behind Sweden trying to extradite him there.

It would just make it harder for us to extradite him if he ends up in Sweden.

[AntiFascist]

13. Sweden does have a history of ....

lawlessly handing over suspects to the US for rendition:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1181101

so if things were handled in secret no one would be the wiser. The advantage of Assange making such a spectacle is that, now if he goes missing, a lot of people would be asking questions.

[pnwmom]

15. You're going to blame Obama for something done under the Bush administration?

That's fair.

[AntiFascist]

17. Who's blaming Obama?

If the military (in secret) and the DOJ are collaborating on this, who's to say that Obama is really even much in the loop? Obama can only put a face on what is said publically, but what happens in secret might be a much different story. No doubt he could put his foot down, so to speak, but he also has to be very careful right before his election.

[pnwmom]

19. He would have to be involved in any such action and you know it.

There is no political advantage in this situation with Assange at all. There are no laws that would clearly allow prosecution for what he did. Assange's making it harder for Obama to let this whole issue disappear, because Assange's determined to use it to drum up support for himself against his rape accusers.

[AntiFascist]

20. His alleged rape victims don't even want to press charges!

Anyone with a brain should realize that there's much more behind this. Assange currently enjoys the safety of asylum. Moving him to Sweden could ultimately put him back in the hands of the UK, if he is acquitted.

[pnwmom]

22. They most certainly do want to press charges. This is what their attorney said in June:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-asylum-tragedy-lawyer


Julian Assange's decision to seek asylum in Ecuador is "a tragedy" for the two women who have accused him of sexual assault in Sweden, their lawyer has said.

Claes Borgström, who represents the two unnamed women with whom the WikiLeaks founder had sexual relations in Stockholm in August 2010, told the Guardian the women were frustrated and disappointed by Assange's decision to seek asylum rather than face investigation in Sweden over claims of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

"They are disappointed, but they are getting used to this by now," said Borgström, who has represented the women throughout Assange's sequence of appeals against extradition in the British courts.

"They know that all they can do is wait. I have told them I am not sure, but I think he will still be extradited … it is a tragedy for the women. I don't know how long it will take for him to be extradited now. Victims want to put these things behind them in order to be able to get on with their lives. The tragedy is that he doesn't take his responsibility. He should have come to Sweden."

[AntiFascist]

24. They would have been satisfied if he had taken an AIDS test, end of story...

if they had subsequently contracted AIDS then I can see where they would be eager for justice. Their attorney wants something more out of this, like a percentage of a cash settlement.

[pnwmom]

25. All we have to go on is what the women say now through their attorney.

No one here speaks for them, especially the Assange apologists who don't even want him to have to answer their allegations.

(And if you're right that HIV was their immediate concern, wasn't it nasty and just plain dumb for Assange not to do what they asked?)

[AntiFascist]

26. I'm not going to try and defend Assange's character...

I'm much more interested in the international politics of the matter.

According to the leaked police report:

"The Guardian report says the women went to police not to seek prosecution but to make him take an AIDS test.

An associate of Assange’s told police he begged Assange to take the test, but he refused."

[pnwmom]

30. Yes. But do you know anything about rape victims?

Do you know how common it is for women at first to downplay what has happened to them? It's not an easy crime to process and many women blame and second-guess themselves.

So at first they were primarily concerned about HIV. Now they want him to be accountable for what they say he did. There is nothing in their behavior that would be inconsistent with the actions of a rape victim. I think Assange should be held just as responsible as any man in this situation.

[AntiFascist]

32. I've never said he shouldn't face trial in Sweden...

but too many people, such as yourself, argue that he is only doing all of this to escape prosecution. That may be a small part of the equation, but if this was only about rape then certainly South American dignataries would not be getting involved.

[pnwmom]

42. You don't think South American "dignitaries" ever do anything for self-serving reasons?

That would make them pretty unique.

[AntiFascist]

43. Of course it is self-serving...

but the issue at hand is much larger than that of a rape charge. They are fighting right-wing imperialism.

[pnwmom]

44. That guy? He's just grandstanding. n/t

[AntiFascist]

46. 6 guys and 1 women, according to the photo in this article...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19314618

[tama]

37. That is true

but we also know how human memory works with each emotional color.

[tama]

29. Where the buck stops

as the saying goes. And this is without doubt just one more issue, with direct link to Manning, torture, war crimes etc., which makes it harder for many DUers and Americans to vote Obama with good conscience instead of holding your nose - as many Blair voters told they were doing back in those days.

[AntiFascist]

31. Good example of the military taking control...

and even Obama has stated that Manning is guilty, before such determination is made.

[tama]

34. For me

it became clear what the man was made of when I saw his economic team. But who knows, it's not totally impossible he's a second termer for a place in history.

[msanthrope]

47. Kindly cite where President Obama said Manning was "guilty." nt

[AntiFascist]

49. Sorry, he said "He broke the law" implying that he is guilty...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53601.html

sparking this protest:

[msanthrope]

52. And he did break the law, did he not? But his guilt is to be determined, as it

should, by a jury.

[AntiFascist]

53. By stating that "He Broke the Law" he is presuming that Manning is guilty...

when it is drilled into our heads that the justice system presumes innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. There are people far more qualified than I arguing this point.

The more troubling problem is that the military has taken the lead in mistreating Manning as if he were guilty, even bringing the attention of the UN, no less:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/11/965970/-U-N-Reprimands-U-S-on-Bradley-Manning-Mistreatment

Notice the picture of Manning where he looks mistreated.

Obama is simply falling in line with this.

[msanthrope]

54. Um...that us not a picture of Bradley Manning at your link. Further, of course he is presuming

Manning broke the law....thus the charges against him by the Executive Branch. If he didn't think Manning had broken the law, it would be a travesty to lodge charges against him.

This is NOT a presumption of guilt, however, and the jury will be instructed on the point. Just because the people charging Manning think he broke the law, that is NOT a presumption of guilt. It is actually the most basic jury charge--that although the prosecutor believes, in good faith, that the defendant has done the actions described in the indictment, this does not imply guilt, nor does the prosecutor's belief, or the charges themself provide proof of innocence or guilt.

[AntiFascist]

55. It looks like the White House explained things differently...

"But White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was in fact making a general statement that did not go specifically to the charges against Manning. “The president was emphasizing that, in general, the unauthorized release of classified information is not a lawful act,” he said Friday night. “He was not expressing a view as to the guilt or innocence of Pfc. Manning specifically.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53601_Page2.html#ixzz24QOUvFwi

Also, according to Politico analysts, Obama does NOT have to abide by rules for classified information because the President has supreme authority over what can be considered classified.

[msanthrope]

56. And nothing said there contradicts what I wrote...Obama did not speak as to Manning's guilt. nt

[leveymg]

9. It'll be a lot easier to extradite him from Sweden than the Embassy of Ecuador in London.

It's no longer a matter for Sweden and the UK.

[pnwmom]

10. True. But the US has nothing to do with him going to Sweden,

as he and others have been claiming.

[leveymg]

11. About that, I don't think we'll agree.

But, I'm sure you'll keep making that same point, regardless.

[pnwmom]

12. You haven't given any reason for your belief. He would need the permission

of both the UK and Sweden to be extradited from Sweden to the US, and Sweden doesn't extradite in political cases. So why would it benefit the US to have him extradited to Sweden now?

[leveymg]

16. You're ignoring the history of both UK and Sweden as enablers of

state crimes by the US. If you need a reminder for either, the Iraq War and Rendition, respectively. The intelligence services and foreign ministries of all three countries do not easily forget and forgive those who strip off the veneer of secrecy and diplomacy.

Thanks to Wikileaks, there are a lot of embarrassed diplomatic cover types who have said one thing to their opposite numbers but reported the complete opposite in their cables back to Washington. These aren't even the highly-classified CIA cables.

You almost can't blame them for anything other than being so awkward and heavy-handed in how they've dealt with this breach. That assumes, of course, that this isn't just a very elaborate sheep-dipping of Julian Assange and the materials that have been handed to him.

[navarth]

5. Good for Ecuador

and bad on us and the UK for this horse shit.

[hack89]

14. This is good news for President Obama

the last thing the president wants is a huge spectacle of a trial that creates a political martyr if he is convicted or a huge embarrassment if he is acquitted. Assange will be on ice until after the election.

[leveymg]

18. A lot of things about the upcoming post 11/06-era increasingly alarm me.

[hack89]

21. Obama wants Assange in a Swedish, not US jail cell

I can see the president, after the election, have the DOJ say that Assange broke no US laws(which is true) and therefore we will not extradite him.

Extraditing Assange and putting him on trial is a losing proposition. Create a political martyr or enhance Assange's image - pick your poison.

[leveymg]

23. I don't think Obama personally has paid much attention to Assange. He's delegated

this to national security types who care enough to have DOJ investigate and convene a Grand Jury.

That's enough for me to conclude that Assange really does have something to worry about when the next extradition opportunity -- or, more precisely, the one after it --comes up. You're a fool if you really believe otherwise.

[hack89]

28. Unless you believe that Obama does not have the final word

I don't see it as an issue.

His advisers will not let him walk into that trap - he may be distracted but they are not.

[leveymg]

35. I think he lets them have a very long lead.

Long enough for the horse to trip over. Take Syria and Iran, for instance.

His "advisers", as you put it, are members of the permanent national security bureaucracy that much run things, generation in and generation out, regardless of who's in the Oval Office. George Ball, who was one, used to call them "The Mandarins". Not much happens unless they're ready to take the jumps and follow the President's lead through the reins.

It takes enormous will and willingness to spend political capital to go in any direction other than what they want. Strong arms aren't enough. I don't see much evidence of that sort of assertion by Obama in the foreign policy and national security areas. Which is why we're getting into real danger in the ME/PG region. We do not want to take another fall there.

[hack89]

38. His political advisers are smart and are paying attention

they know that Assange could become a domestic political issue as well as an international issue.

They are not part of the permanent national security bureaucracy by any stretch of the imagination.

[leveymg]

39. I wish I could have the sort of blind faith in the wisdom of WH advisers that you seem to.

But knowing what I do, looking back over the last five decades, I can't be that sanguine about where we are headed now.

[hack89]

40. I just reject your picture of a distant, unaware President. nt

[leveymg]

48. I never said he was unaware.

But Obama is, above all else, an institutionalist. I would call him a conservative, in some ways, but frankly those who embrace that term these days are simply Right-wing crazies. He's not a crazy, but he's not a progressive at least in his economic and foreign policy agendas.

If I had to search for the source of my misgivings, it's that I think he lacks imagination, and would sacrifice too much to save existing structures and alliances that no longer work to the benefit of the common American. I have to question the very legitimacy of some of what's being done in our names overseas, and fear that too little has been learned from recent mistakes to avoid catastrophic blowback, again.

I've said my piece on this one, for now.

[randome]

41. I look back over five decades, too.

And I am more optimistic for our future than before.

[leveymg]

45. I hope I'm wrong. eom

[randome]

50. --------------

[darkangel218]

27. What if he gets sick

And needs to go to the hospital? What's going to happen to him then?

[hack89]

33. He will be arrested and sent to Sweden. nt

[randome]

36. Two more centuries of this crap on DU? Nooooooooo!!!!!

[fascisthunter]

51. hahaha