Why the Ecuadorians are stalling on Assange's asylum request

[struggle4progress]

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 12:52 PM - Edit history (2)

The Ecuadorians' (not always pleasant) experience of US foreign policy naturally leaves them sympathetic to anyone who pokes the US in the eyes, and Assange made a great show of doing exactly that. Accordingly, they might enjoy granting Assange's asylum request, if it smecked the US in the schnozz again. But, all the paranoid histrionics of Assange & Co aside, the actual result of an asylum grant would be much gnarlier than that for Ecuador

According to general Latin American standards, an asylum seeker can flee to a country's embassy; and if that country agrees to offer asylum, then high-level negotiations for the asylee's safe passage to that country will follow. But it is understood this is intended as a mechanism to protect political refugees, not common criminals. However, these general Latin American standards are codified only in regional treaties and are not widely accepted. The idea, that someone in instant danger can appropriately seek temporary refuge in an embassy, is probably widely accepted, but again this view is not intended to shelter common criminals

A first problem for Ecuador, therefore, is simply that Assange is wanted in conjunction with criminal complaints in Sweden and is further subject to arrest in the UK for jumping bail. No evidence has ever been presented that the criminal process in Sweden is politically motivated

A second problem for Ecuador is that there no grounds for thinking Assange is in such instant danger in the UK, or would be in such instant danger in Sweden if extradited there, that Ecuador's prompt intercession is required for humanitarian reasons. Assange moved about freely in Sweden during his stay there. After his arrest in the UK (nearly two years ago now), he was granted bail and was largely free there as well, subject to such minor conditions as wearing a tracking bracelet, contacting the police daily, and spending evening hours at a certain fixed address (which happened to be a very comfortable mansion). Circumstances do not suggest any official efforts in either Sweden or the UK to kill him or to cause him grave bodily or emotional harm. Nor do circumstances otherwise suggest that he is a victim of, or is likely to become a victim of, nefarious official efforts, in Sweden or the UK, to interfere with his natural human rights in any substantial way, except in the normal course of Swedish process for a sexual crimes complaint

A third problem for Ecuador is that the UK does not recognize "diplomatic asylum" and would be extraordinarily unlikely to follow the Latin American model of negotiating safe-passage from the UK to Ecuador, in the event that Ecuador offered Assange "diplomatic asylum" -- first, because the UK will find no reason to disrespect Sweden in such manner; second, because authorities in the UK will not disregard the orders of the UK courts so lightly

A fourth problem for Ecuador is that Sweden, having gone to the trouble of swearing out a warrant for Assange, in order to bring him under the Swedish criminal justice process, and having pursued that warrant, at some length, against Assange’s contest in the UK courts, is unlikely to view favorably any Ecuadorian interference in the process. The conspiracy theories -- advanced by Assange, his lawyers and his supporters, according to which the Swedes have (contrary to Swedish constitution and statute) allowed a foreign power to subvert their criminal justice process, in order to facilitate a subsequent extradition to the US, so that Assange can be tortured or executed -- are just insulting to Sweden as a modern and progressive country, proud of its tolerance and humanitarianism. Granting Assange asylum involves a slander of Sweden, which cannot lubricate Swedish-Ecuadorian relations

A fifth and similar problem for Ecuador is that the UK, having thoroughly digested this topic in its courts, is unlikely to view favorably any Ecuadorian grant of asylum to a common criminal suspect. The upheld warrant for Assange involves an allegation of rape. The UK will find no advantage in allowing Ecuador to set a precedent, of sheltering in its embassy, persons accused of rape. Such a precedent would signal that any person, accused of any common crime, may dependably seek refuge with any diplomat with credentials at the Court of St James, undermining all intents of established international diplomatic understandings. Whether or not it intends to use available remedies, the UK does have options for enforcing a demand to hand over Assange, including expelling the Ecuadorian ambassador or breaking diplomatic relations with Ecuador

There is a related but somewhat more general problem for Ecuador. The Europeans have a carefully-negotiated extradition regime, according to which Assange could not be re-extradicted to the US from Sweden without the permission of the UK. A re-extradition request would be litigable in both Sweden and the UK. The conspiracy theories -- involving subsequent extradition to the US -- are insulting to the entire European community that negotiated the extradition regime, suggesting that Ecuador regards the European treaties as meaningless. As there is no particular upside to the European community, in having their treaties so regarded, an Ecuadorian grant of asylum to Assange will not lubricate European-Ecuadorian relations

[Manifestor_of_Light]

1. Julian Assange has not been charged with any crime. In Sweden or the U.S.

[hack89]

5. There is a valid Swedish arrest warrant - that's why he skipped town in the first place.

On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden.[17][18] On 18 October 2010, his request was denied.[18][17][19] He left Sweden on 27 September 2010[20]. The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest[21].

On 18 November 2010, prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for the arrest of Assange in order for him to be interviewed by the prosecutor.[22] As he was now living in England, the court ordered him detained (häktad) in absentia.[23][24] On appeal, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the warrant on suspicion of rape, olaga tvång (duress/unlawful coercion), and two cases of sexuellt ofredande,[25][26][27][28] which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation",[29] "sexual assault",[30] "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment".[31][32][19][26][27] The Supreme Court of Sweden decided not to consider a further appeal as no principle was at stake.[citation needed][33] On 6 December 2010, Scotland Yard notified Assange that a valid European arrest warrant had been received.[34]

Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[35] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. The High Court found that the Swedish process has reached the stage of criminal proceedings, which would be equivalent to having been charged under English process[36].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

[msanthrope]

13. Indeed--Assange's own lawyer testified to the fact that he warned his client that

he was subject to arrest, confinement, and DNA sample collection. Assange fled Sweden the day before he was supposed to report to the Prosecutor's office. (see pages 7-8)


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

[sabrina 1]

15. And what are the charges? Two years, a crazy lawyer, Karl Rove behind the scenes, and

still no charges. Anyone can issue an arrest warrant. After two years of refusing to file charges, that warrant has lost all validity. Sweden has repeatedly refused to talk to Assange. Assange talked to the police in Sweden then asked to talk to them again, but they refused. There is no legal barrier to Swedish prosecutors coming to the UK, they've done it before and have been exposed as lying when they made that claim.

Sweden has lost all credibility regarding its judicial system, which outside the US propaganda machine, has become a laughing stock around the world. A man hunted down across the globe for a 'broken condom'. It really is laughable. Kudos to Karl Rove though, he has connnections.

Assange is actually winning the PR case on this, except with Fox of course, Sarah Palin et al, but the International view of Palin isn't exactly complimentary either. And unfortunately the US loses credibility when it allows Fox and Palin and the like to define who we are by not slapping them down officially ourselves.

[hack89]

22. You do understand that the Swedish legal system is.different from.America's ?

Did you read my link - it explains it well. He was going to be arrested - he ran.

[sabrina 1]

26. You are incorrect. He did not 'run'. He remained in Sweden after having spoken to the

police and his attorneys asked if they wanted to speak to him as he would remain in Sweden until he did, if that was necessary. His attorneys were later contacted by the Prosecutors and told that he was 'free to leave', they had no further questions for him.

Typical Rovian trick. Sort of like how they set up Dan Rather. So after hearing from the prosecutor, he finally left. And then 'wham' suddenly there is an arrest warrant.

See my post elsewhere in this thread re Rove.

You have incorrect information. All of this has been verified over and over again. He was told he was not needed, he DID speak to the police, contrary to the wild stories in the US media, and left when he was told they no longer needed him there.

He is not a fool, nor are his attorneys, to 'run' as you say, would have been stupid. And if he was going to 'run' the last place he would have gone to was Britain. What utter nonsense and so contradictory to all the established facts already known about this case.

[struggle4progress]

31. From the UK case:

... In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days <after 15th September> I telephoned <Ms Ny> a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.

Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight ...

Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong ...

In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldn’t have happened. He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible.

The witness had to leave to catch a flight. Miss Montgomery said that there were further challenges she could make to his evidence, but thought it unnecessary in the circumstances. That was accepted by the court after no point was taken by Mr Robertson. The witness was clearly uncomfortable and anxious to leave.
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

[hack89]

32. He ran - and now is trapped like a rat.

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)

He will either spend years in the Ecuadorean embassy harmless and impotent or will be put on the streets to be arrested. Either case is good.

[sabrina 1]

35. Why am I not surprised!

As for impotent, I'm thrilled to see he's getting more attention now than he ever did. His situation is creating a huge platform for people to discuss the very issues Wikileaks was started to address.

The Chinese Government thought when they attacked the Tiananmen Square Protesters that would silence them too.

Instead many of those shocked by that brutal assault were part of the creation of Wikileaks giving a new generation of Chinese Dissidents a place to expose the oppression.

China agrees with you btw, since Wikileaks has managed to get around THEIR censorship also. But they are letting the US and Sweden do their dirty work for them.

You can tell as much about the value of a person as much by their enemies as by their friends. Assange has all the predictable enemies and all the right Friends.

Thanks for weighing in on the subject.

[hack89]

37. So why is the nation not talking about Assange?

it is not on the TV
it is not in the papers
it is not a topic of the election

Just where are all these Americans talking about Assange?

I don't think that platform is as big as you think it is.

[sabrina 1]

39. The Nation has written extensively on Wikileaks

and like most Human Rights and Freedom of the Press advocates around the world, have consistently supported it.

The platform I am talking about does not include the US MSM where they don't talk about Bush War Crimes or Wall Street Corruption either. Since that is what Wikileaks and Assange are guilty of doing, exposing the Bush war crimes and were close to exposing Wall Street corruption, I think you've answered your own question.

The US has become increasingly isolated from the rest of the world on matters of freedom of the press (now ranking #47 on the World's Press Chart, a shameful position for the media of a democracy to find itself in) Fortunately however the influence of the US MSM has shrunk and the World now relies on more credible unbiased media. Fox is not considered a reliable source anywhere but the US.

From South America to Africa and the ME and most of Europe, people are exposed to actual journalism and as recently as just last week, documentaries on this phony 'case' against Assange were viewed by millions out side the US.

The silence of the US media on this case has indeed been noted and condemned. Why do you think our Media refuses to discuss Bush War Crimes and Wall Street Corruption btw? Why are they afraid to stand up for what this case is about, Freedom of the Press? That silence has been universally condemned specifically wrt to this case.

And while the US Media remains silent, Assange has continued to be awarded prizes for excellence in Jouralism in other parts of the world.

Relying on the MSM here is not advisable if you wish to remain informed and keep up with the rest of the world, which consists of billions of people who do not live in the US most of whom are way better informed than the average American.

We are not the world and we are among the least informed people in the world. We are merely a fraction of the population of the world. And we do not have a free press or any real journalists still employed by our Corporate Owned media.

[hack89]

40. So Americans are not talking about it because we are stupid and ignorant? OK. nt

[sabrina 1]

41. Is that what you think?

I think it's because of the Corporate Owned Media who KNOW that Americans are not stupid, and the only way to stop them from talking about important issues is either to distort the facts themselves, or not cover them at all.

Since many Americans now get their news elsewhere, these tactics are not as successful as the used to be. In RL many Americans are talking about him BECAUSE they have accessed other media.

You did not say 'The American People are not talking about Assange'. You said 'The Media is not talking about Assange'.

For the record, a lot of Americans, including people like John Conyers among others, ARE talking about him and the threat to freedom of the press that his case highlights. But you are correct, the Media is not talking about him, shamefully.

[hack89]

42. The nation = the American people. I was not talking about the magazine.

And no, it is not a topic of discussion with the American public - only a very small slice of America cares about Assange.

[sabrina 1]

43. It is where I am. A big topic of conversation. But then my friends and associates don't

use the MSM for information. Big topic among Dems in NY also. Big topic among Civil Rights Organizations in the US and elsewhere.

I think you should try to mix with people who are more informed if you are not among people who are discussing these major issues. I eg, do not know a single Dem who is not deeply concerned about this case. It has huge ramifications for Freedom of the Press, always a big issue for Democrats.

And then when you look at who hates Assange, that ought to be enough cause for concern. Sarah Palin eg who thinks that a citizen of another country should be tried for 'treason'. Her words regarding Assange pretty much shocked the rest of the world since from outside the US, she is viewed as a former candidate for Vice President of the US. Very embarrassing for this country to have the world think she represents our view on Wikileaks and Assange.

Surely you do not agree with her?

[hack89]

44. It is arrogant as hell to assume people disagree with you out of ignorance

I mix with very informed people - I travel constantly on business and meet constantly with a wide range of people.

I don't think Assange should be tried for treason. I am not concerned about Wikileaks. He needs to go back to Sweden and answer the prosecutors questions.

[sabrina 1]

45. I'm judging by your posts on this topic. Your insistence that

Assange has nothing to fear by falling into the trap laid for him by the right wingers in Sweden, demonstrates to me, that wherever you are getting your information, it is devoid of facts.

Assange did talk to the Swedish Police in Sweden.

Assange remained in Sweden for five weeks making himself available to the Swedish prosecutor for questioning.

Assange left after being told he was no longer needed in Sweden.

Assange has consistently made himself available to the Swedish Prosecutor for questioning but has been consistently turned down.

The Swedish Prosecutor's only excuse for refusing to speak to him in Britain, turned out to be a LIE. There are no legal impediments, as they claimed, to doing so. And they have done it before.

Karl Rove behind the scenes, need we say more?

The denial of the women that any rape occurred and proof in writing of that, makes it a little difficult for the Swedish Prosecutors.

The fact that Sweden has a sorry history of 'rendering' Swedish Citizens wanted by the US who were tortured, makes it imperative that Assange stay out of Sweden until the US confirms in writing that they have no intention of prosecuting and extraditing him. This has not occurred.

Finally, after two years of lies and flip flops and prevarications, when asked why they do not simply file charges, the Swedish Prosecutors have no credible answer.

And most important of all, not a single charge has been filed against this man. He is, absent any information to the contrary, and two years is ample time to have provided it, an innocent man.

You called this innocent man 'a rat'. You provided nothing to back up your reasoning for your 'opinion'. You either were not in possession of the facts, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that since the alternative is that you don't care about the facts for some inconceivable reason.

Forgive me if I assumed you were not associating yourself with the available facts or with people who were in possession of them or even cared about them. If I am wrong, then your comments were very unclear so I think I can be excused for my conclusions.

[hack89]

46. You weave a conspiracy theory with Karl Rove at the center

and accuse me of avoiding the facts? OK.

Why are you avoiding these facts:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

As pointed out by msanthrope:

he was subject to arrest, confinement, and DNA sample collection. Assange fled Sweden the day before he was supposed to report to the Prosecutor's office. (see pages 7-8)

[sabrina 1]

47. Assange did not 'flee' Sweden. That article was incorrect.

He never attempted to flee. And what a stupid thing to do if fleeing was what he had in mind, to go to Britain?? As if Sweden could not have found him there. What a ridiculous claim. He was used to being on the run, from various dictatorships. Not exactly inexperienced in where to go to be safe. He left after being told that he was free to go. That is a fact.

I see you ignoring every fact that has been presented to you. Just as I expected.

[hack89]

48. It is not an article. It is a court record of "Findings of facts and reasons"

it demolishes in great detail all your "facts".

[girl gone mad]

36. Can we call you DietPepsi, too?

The anti-leaks.

[lapislzi]

52. Here's a thought.

Maybe, if you're a high-profile agitator who suspects that the PTB are amassing a dossier on you and may in fact use any pretext to slap you with an arrest warrant, you shouldn't go raping people. Or do anything that might be interpreted as rape. Or do anything to attract the wrong kind of attention to yourself.

On second thought, maybe you shouldn't be raping no matter who you are.

[hack89]

53. If Karl Rove can steer a hurricane at New Orleans

I am sure he can make Assange rape women. He has amazing powers from what I have heard.

[lapislzi]

54. Faustian bargains have a way of catching up with you. n/t

[struggle4progress]

6. As there are differences between the criminal justice systems in the UK and Sweden,

it is misleading to describe the actions of the Swedish prosecutors using terminology only based on the traditional adversarial English procedures. Comparing the different systems, for the purposes of extradition, has been handled by appropriately negotiated agreements, and on the basis of those agreements, the UK courts determined that the UK could, should, and would honor the warrant issued in Sweden for the purposes of bringing Assange to the Swedish criminal process

Assange and his lawyers did argue before the UK courts, in detail, the question of whether the UK could honor the warrant, based on the current stage of the Swedish criminal process. The UK courts held against Assange and for the Swedish prosecutors

[sabrina 1]

16. The UK ruled incorrectly. It happens. And in the case of the UK it is questionable whether

any other ruling could have been expected. It's not the end of the world. Other courageous journalists have had courts rule against them.

But is there some reason for your determination to ignore many of the facts of this case and to post all over DU in an attempt to convince people that Assange is in the wrong here, when no charges have ever been filed against him??

We've discussed this already, you appear to not want to know the facts, that this man is being persecuted, the law being used as a weapon to silence him. This is nothing new.

But the facts demonstrate that no matter what technicalities of the law are ruled on, he is an innocent man. That doesn't seem to bother you at all.

[struggle4progress]

18. Res judicata. The warrant was upheld 24 February 2011; on appeal to the High Court,

it was upheld 2 November 2011; on appeal to the Supreme Court, it was upheld 30 May 2012; Assange thereafter declined to appeal further to Strasbourg, electing instead to flee to the embassy

He is certainly entitled to claim his innocence, but that claim of innocence does not preclude further action by the Swedish criminal justice system: everyone recognizes he is entitled to a fair hearing in court, but (obviously) a claim of innocence cannot automatically forestall prosecution

[sabrina 1]

19. Being entitled to a fair hearing and getting one are two very different things. So far

it doesn't look good for the Swedish Judicial system and he most certainly has NOT received a fair hearing. He has been, to put it mildly, railroaded and blatantly so.

Happily the media in other parts of the world have dug deep into this story and what they find, is what those of us who followed it from the start, already knew. This is a clear case of persecution. When the women themselves deny the allegations, and there is evidence of those denials, you simply have no case.

There is no way anyone watching this unfold in real time, or reading or watching the investigative reports done on the case, the most recent one I saw last week, could not be outraged at what is going on here.

you don't seem to be concerned at all with the fact that this an innocent man. He is not 'innocent until proven guilty' as is the case with someone charged with a crime.

HE HAS NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME. I am sorry to yell, but this simple fact seems to be escaping you.

Since he has been pursued for no reason, no arrest warrant is valid and no follow up legal procedures are valid. Sweden's Prosecutors have been unable to explain that arrest warrant when asked in public to do so.

The root of this case is rotten. The rest will one day have to be dismissed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. US trade benefits for Ecuador seen at risk in Assange case - Reuters

No. No pressure from the U.S. Nope. Not at all. Perish the thought.

How dare that naughty man embarrass the "land of the free"??

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/ecuador-assange-usa-trade-idINDEE87D0GX20120814

An possible decision this week by Ecuador to grant political asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would put long-time U.S. trade benefits for the Andean country at risk, U.S. business leaders and analysts said. "It's not a move destined to win many new friends in Washington," said Eric Farnsworth, vice president at the Council of Americas, a group representing U.S. companies that do business in the Western Hemisphere.

Congress first passed the Andean trade program in 1991 to help create jobs in the region and discourage the illegal drug trade. It allowed Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador to ship thousands of goods to the United States without paying duties. Ecuador is now the sole beneficiary under the program since Colombia and Peru have negotiated free trade pacts with the United States and the White House suspended Bolivia in 2008 for its failure to cooperation in the U.S. war on drugs.

The program will expire again next July unless Congress votes to renew it. In addition, the Obama administration could suspend Ecuador's benefits sooner if it decides Quito is not meeting the program's eligibility requirements.

"In my view, (a decision to grant Assange asylum) would add to the growing weight of issues arguing against reauthorization next summer. The question is whether it would also create sufficient interest in suspending the benefits before they actually expire," Farnsworth said.

[struggle4progress]

21. Your article quotes private trade groups such as Council of Americas and

the National Foreign Trade Council. The main focus of the article is that Chevron wants to pressure Ecuador to drop a pollution judgement against the company. That is informative and probably does accurately suggest a propaganda line that the corporatists will use in attempting to pressure Ecuador, through the medium of US trade policy. That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikileaks or the Swedish criminal complaints against Assange: it is the usual matter of large multinationals hoping to maximize their profits and to crush their opponents by any means necessary

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Which also has the potential to influence Ecuador to cave to the those wishing to persecute Assange.

[struggle4progress]

2. Ecuador’s president denies reports Julian Assange granted asylum

Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa has taken to Twitter to deny reports that Julian Assange’s asylum application has been approved.

“The rumour about asylum to Assange is false. There is still no decision. I am waiting for information from the Chancellor’s Office,” Mr Correa tweeted.

Earlier, a British newspaper had quoted an Ecuadorian government official saying "Ecuador will grant asylum to Julian Assange".

However, President Correa said earlier this week he hoped an announcement was forthcoming on whether he would grant Assange asylum ...

http://www.3news.co.nz/Ecuadors-president-denies-reports-Julian-Assange-granted-asylum/tabid/417/articleID/265459/Default.aspx

[Gregorian]

3. But doesn't the treatment of Bradley Manning play a role?

Interesting statements. I look forward to any conversation this board may have on this subject.

I think it's fair to say that if Bradley Manning has been treated so poorly, Assange can expect similar treatment, and is attempting to avoid such mistreatment. Not to mention the fact that much of this case is related to the US military.

[struggle4progress]

7. Bradley Manning is a member of the US military, anticipating trial before a court martial

for allegedly releasing a large volume of information available to him, due to his special intelligence access

Julian Assange is an Australian, currently in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK, seeking to avoid extradition to Sweden for sexual assault allegations

[Gregorian]

11. Isn't this just the disguised means of getting Assange into US custody?

That's how I've seen this all along.

[struggle4progress]

12. And you reached that particular conclusion, based on what facts?

Sweden currently has a substantial history of neutrality: the country stayed out of both world wars and remained unaligned during the cold war. Does that suggest they are somehow especially vulnerable to foreign pressure?

The country has a strong and long-standing traditions for democracy and freedom of the press. Presumably that's why Assange was planning to move his servers there and why he applied for residence there in 2010. Does that suggest they are somehow extraordinarily unsympathetic to Wikileaks?

Here is an official document explaining the importance to Sweden of human rights in its foreign policy:
Human Rights in Swedish Foreign Policy
http://www.manskligarattigheter.se/dm3/file_archive/040301/3e2f0d255a5e3a6938c1bc0678ff7d8e/s200304_20e.pdf
Does that suggest they are indifferent to human rights concerns?

The Swedish Prosecutorial Authority insists that Assange could not be re-extradited from Sweden to the US without obtaining first the permission of the UK. The UK courts have asserted similarly, pointing out that such a re-extradition could be challenged in both the Swedish and UK courts. So extraditing him to US from the UK would be much easier than extradicting him from the UK to Sweden and thence to the US

[sabrina 1]

17. Yes. The US could extradite him from Britain, however, Sweden had already

stepped in and started the hunt so the US has to wait for that situation to be resolved.

It must be remembered that Assange has never been charged by Sweden. That Sweden has consistently refused to accept his offer to speak to them in Britain. Initially Sweden claimed the reason they could not do that was because of 'legal barriers'. That has been thoroughly debunked, considering they've done it before with someone outside the country. There is no legal barrier so why will they not talk to him?

Why have they not filed charges? When asked, it's interesting to see the struggle of Swedish Officials to explain this. When real journalists question them, they become very defensive, but provide no answers.

There is also the Karl Rove involvement in Sweden. Not to mention that the women were extremely upset when they realized their questions re getting a test of Assange for STDs had turned into rape charges. They have denied this vehemently and there are quotes available from one of the women that there was never any rape.

The lawyer who stepped into the case supposedly on their behalf is a wacko political figure in Sweden. One of his far out beliefs is that even if a woman does not believe she was raped, someone can go forward with charges without her consent.

He also believes that all men should be required to pay a 'rape tax'. The reason? They are men, and even if perfectly innocent, they are responsible for their male cohorts who do rape women.

He has been interviewed about this case, he has refused to respond to questions about the many holes in it by getting angry, stating he will not discuss anything with the media and generally becoming antagonistic.

The US refused to confirm or deny they are after Assange, had they done so, he might have succeeded in his plea against extradition. But we know they have a Grand Jury seated trying to find a crime to attach to him.

As of now, he is a completely innocent man free even of any charges whatsoever, yet he has been deprived of his freedom for two years. Not the first journalist to have been persecuted like this in the history of the world, but the first time I've witnessed such a travesty in real time.

[struggle4progress]

20. Perhaps you believe Rove has magic powers? If memory serves, he was a campaign adviser

for Bush the Second, and thus became a policy adviser for Bush the Second, under the "perpetual campaign" doctrine

However, again if memory serves, Bush the Second's tenure ended in January 2009, at which time the Republicans lost control of the White House. Thereupon, Rove's national influence in the US diminished somewhat

So it is unclear how Rove's reported travel to Sweden qualifies as evidence that the US has strong-armed Sweden into pursuing criminal sexual allegations against Assange: such a claim, without a more solid factual base, might naturally be described as a paranoid hallucination

[sabrina 1]

25. Rove, after quitting his job as 'Bush's Brain' later became Sweden's 'Fredrik Reinfeldt's Brain'.

We are talking about the position he took as political adviser to Sweden's PM, Fredrik Reinfeldt.

Interestingly, he became a political adviser to Sweden's Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, known as 'Sweden's Ronald Reagan' in 2010, coincidentally the year that Assange was smeared, and kept that position for approx. two years. So we don't have to believe in magic, we just have to look at the facts:

http://www.socialdems.com/page.asp?PID=1406

Traditional Swedish politics also are in flux. Brian Palmer is an American, a former Harvard lecturer, who has immigrated to Sweden and become a Swedish citizen. Palmer has penned a biography of Sweden’s prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt. Palmer credits Reinfeldt, 43, with leading the shift away from the progressive social policies for which Sweden has become world-famous. He said Reinfeldt, in 1993, “wrote a book, ‘The Sleeping People,’ where he said that the welfare state should only prevent starvation, nothing beyond that. After being elected ... one of his first major visits abroad was to George Bush in the White House.”

Reinfeldt and his Moderate Party hired Karl Rove as a political consultant to help with the election coming in 2010. Palmer went on: “We have a real kind of silent war on the labor movement. We have a rather dramatic change in the tax system, abolishing the inheritance tax and most property taxes, cutbacks in social-welfare institutions.” This week, a new coalition of center-left political parties formed to challenge this rightward drift.

Since most of the Wikileaks revelations exposed the Bush War Crimes and other corruption of that regime, Rove certainly had an interest in protecting his old boss's legacy.


Bush and Sweden's Frederik Reinhardt


Is Karl Rove Driving the Effort to Prosecute Julian Assange?

Former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove likely is playing a leading role in the effort to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a source with ties to the justice community tells Legal Schnauzer.

Assange was arrested last week in London for alleged sex crimes in Sweden. A lawyer for Assange said Monday that the arrest was a ruse designed to give the United States more time to build a case against Assange on other charges. The lawyer said a grand jury is being prepared in Washington, D.C., to look into WikiLeaks' activities. Meanwhile, Assange has a court date today in the UK, where he is expected to seek a release on bail.

That Assange's legal troubles would originate in Sweden probably is not a coincidence, our source says. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has been called "the Ronald Reagan of Europe," and he has a friendship with Rove that dates back at least 10 years, to the George W. Bush campaign for president in 2000. Reinfeldt reportedly asked Rove to help with his 2010 re-election in Sweden.

So no magic required. He was forced from the Bush WH in 2007 because of the US Attorney Firings and under fire for his possible role in the Don Siegelman Witchhunt.

Congress let him off the hook, and now apparently have found a new use for him. It is believed that he worked with the Obama Administration on the Wikileaks case which would explain why Democrats became so quiet about his former crimes and refusals to testify before Congress.

As one observer said, the persecution of Assange has 'Rove written all over it' and considering he was right there at the scene of the crime, there doesn't need to be much stretch of the imagination to come to the conclusion that he was right in the middle of it.

[struggle4progress]

27. How exactly did the prosecution of Assange help Reinfeldt win in 2010?

The election was held 19 September 2010. Assange left Sweden about a week a later. Assange then apparently agreed through his lawyer to return for an interview 14 October but did not. The arrest warrant finally issued 18 November 2010, two months after the election

That couldn't possibly affect the outcome of the 2010 elections, unless Rove was supplying the Swedes with press reports from news reporters with magic time travel powers

[sabrina 1]

28. What?? Who said anything about this affecting the Reinfeldt election? Where did you get

that from?

This was in response to your lack of knowledge re where Rove was in 2010 and your assumption that I thought he was still working for Bush in going after Wikileaks.

I realized you knew nothing much about the facts of this case and provided you with information to show it required no magic for Rove to be in Sweden, close to the Right Wing PM and capable of 'helping' to smear Assange.

As for Assange leaving Sweden, there is no doubt that the Prosecutor told him they had no more questions for him and he was free to leave.

Assange changed his mind, rightfully, about returning because of the information re the US planning to indict him. He was absolutely correct to refuse to return.

You are conflating two things here. He was told they had no more questions, he left, THEN they demanded he return.

Why did they not ask him the questions while he was there?

Why did they wait until he left, why tell him to leave, before flip flopping and asking him to return?

He did NOT refuse to talk to them. His lawyers always made him available to the prosecutors.

The prosecutors lied, and were caught in that lie, by claiming they could not come to Britain because of 'legal impediments'. That was a lie. There are no legal impediments to them interviewing him in Britain.

This was a Rove trick. Tell him to go, then demand he come back which he probably won't, then go after him.

Rove shenanigans at their finest.

Why will they not accept his invitation to speak to them in Britain? Why do YOU think they are afraid to do so?

It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. All you have to do is look at the 'evidence' for this 'case' and you know that most of it is exculpatory.

Iow, they have no case. But by dragging this out, they keep him from operating freely.

But where you got that this had anything to do with Reinfeldt's reelection I do not know. That was simply to show you how closely Rove was working with the Swedish Government.

Sweden has a bad rep for working with the US for 'renditioning' two of its own citizens who were tortured at the request of the US.

So Assange is absolutely correct to stay away from them.

[struggle4progress]

30. "Reinfeldt ... hired ... Rove as a ... consultant to help with the election ... in 2010"

That's exerpted from your post upthread

The election occurred while Assange was still in Sweden. It had been over about a week when Assange finally left Sweden in late September 2010. Assange left Sweden while the authorities were negotiating with his lawyer to schedule an interview. He then, through his lawyer, led the authorities to believe he would return to Sweden and make himself available for an interview in mid-October, but then he never returned. A month later, and two months after the election (that Rove helped Reinfeldt with), the authorities issued a warrant against Assange

Adding Rove's name to the story doesn't seem to clarify anything about the Swedish warrant

[sabrina 1]

38. Yes, proving his close relationship, in 2010 with the 'Ronald Reagan' of Sweden.

2010, the year the smear campaign against Assange began. He had motive, he had access and the smear campaign, the tactics, the involvement of Sweden's Right Wing media eg who view him as a hero, all point to Rove's usual dirty tricks in this case which we are all so familiar with here.

His major motive being to silence Wikileaks from revealing the dirty secrets and war crimes of the Bush years, which is mostly what the War Logs did. His goal, to deflect from any discussion of the real crimes, and keep up the pretense that Assange is wanted for a crime that never existed. He's good, so long as people remain as gullible as they were here when they fell for the lies about the Iraq War.

Those supporting the silencing of Wikileaks are either deliberately or inadvertently helping Rove cover for the Bush administration's war crimes and lies.

Btw, do you have anything to say about the real crimes exposed in the War Logs eg? How do you feel about the torture of human beings? You have not said a word about those massive Human Rights abuses, but seem more concerned about the case of a broken condom.

Quite frankly I am shocked that at least Democrats have allowed themselves to be distracted from the massive, brutal war crimes revealed by those leaks. Priorities I guess. So sad.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. Hey, don't hurt yourself mixing up your apples with your oranges there.

[HERVEPA]

4. Yeh. Not in any danger. Bullshit!

[struggle4progress]

8. I have no idea what exactly you are trying to say

[HERVEPA]

33. Sure you don't

I'm sure you've never heard of the possibility of him being handed over to the U.S. by Sweden for him to be tried.
Pretty damn disingenuous.

[struggle4progress]

34. The Latin American theory of diplomatic asylum is not typically available for common crime;

nor is the more widely-accepted notion of refuge-in-embassy, in cases involving instant danger, usually available for common crime. But neither of these concepts is typically applied in extradition cases

If presented with credible evidence that Assange's human rights would likely be violated upon extradition to Sweden, the UK would have had a duty under law to refuse the extradition on so-called "extraneous" grounds. But the court in the UK found that no such evidence had been presented

But perhaps you advance a more general theory, leading somewhat along the following lines: Assange, wanted by the ordinary criminal justice system in Sweden, and in no instant danger in either Sweden or the UK, has engaged in some unspecified behavior that could potentially lead to an espionage prosecution elsewhere, from which Ecuador has a duty to shield him. Developing this theory will no doubt be interesting: in exactly which cases, of potential espionage prosecution, do you think that the Ecuadorian embassy in London may be used to shelter persons in violation of their bail conditions set by UK courts?

[HERVEPA]

49. Blah! Blah! Blah!

[struggle4progress]

51. That's remarkably inarticulate

[HERVEPA]

55. Well Sport, just because you use a ton of words doesn't make you articulate....

and actually I believe I got the point across quite well.

[SidDithers]

9. DU rec...nt

Sid

[morningfog]

50. They are done stalling: Ecuador grants asylum to Assange, angering Britain

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-wikileaks-assange-idUSBRE87F0KQ20120816