Julian Assange row: Britain seeking diplomatic solution in Ecuador standoff

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Downing Street has said Britain is still committed to seeking a diplomatic solution with Ecuador in the standoff over the proposed extradition to Sweden of Julian Assange.

But British diplomats in the Ecuadorean capital, Quito, and in other regional capitals have communicated the message that David Cameron is adamant Assange will not be granted safe passage. They say Britain is under a legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden to face allegations of sexual misconduct.

The government's thinking was outlined by the prime minister's spokesman at the weekly Downing Street lobby briefing. The spokesman said: "Our hope is that we can reach a diplomatic solution and we are doing what we can to achieve that.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/20/julian-assange-britain-ecuador-standoff

[zeemike]

1. And just look at all the time energy and money

they are willing to spend to make someone face charges in Sweden of not wearing a condom...
There is a lot more too it than that...and they know it. All of that nonsense stuff is just the set up to let the US get their hands on him an probably torture him for information and probably eventually kill him....but first they will make him pray for death.
Examples must be sent to put a chill on anyone that thinks they can fuck with the great powers in the world.

[cstanleytech]

2. But the question is do they mean Diplomacy with or without a gun to the head?

[Hydra]

4. With, of course

After all, they already threatened to go in and arrest him anyway...until most of the civilized and uncivilized world basically said "do that, and we'll do it to you..."

I took this as, "Our position hasn't changed, but we're going to pretend to be civil this time."

I wonder if the embassy has a tunnel to Heathrow...

[DeSwiss]

3. But there is a diplomatic solution Davy boy.....

...[font size=4]FUCK OFF![/font]

- K&R

[Posteritatis]

5. "Diplomatic solution" and "threatening to violate the embassy" rarely coexist. (nt)

[Fumesucker]

6. *cough* Pinochet *cough* n/t

[hack89]

13. What exactly is the comparison with Pinochet? nt

[JDPriestly]

7. It occurred to me this morning that it may be that the reason that the extradition to

Sweden is such an important thing to British authorities has to do with the difference in the legal system in Common Law (Britain) and Civil Law (Sweden).

I notice that Assange now has a lawyer or legal representation that is familiar with the Civil Law system.

I don't know what all the differences are, but it may be that in Civil Law, Assange would not enjoy the protections as a defendant that he might enjoy in Common Law. I'm really asking a question of people who know the difference in the legal procedures of Civil and Common Law.

Would Assange be entitled to the assistance of an English-speaking attorney and an interpreter in British and Swedish law.

What about the scope of the interrogation and how the interrogation (interview) would be conducted? What would be the differences.

When I think how difficult it would be to prove the charge of rape during sleep without a condom after a night together, and the he said she said aspects of it, I really can't believe that Sweden would fight this hard to get its hands on Assange. There has to be some other motivation. I could be wrong, very wrong. I've certainly been wrong before, but this explanation concerning the differences in the law occurred to me today.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

8. wouldn't it be more fair to say that its assange thats fighting hard to resist, then sweden fighting

hard to get him.

Unless I'm wrong its been Assange thats been ruled against and using every option available to try and delay as well as change the results. (i mean sure, Sweden could just throw their hands into the air and say we surrender but what kind of signal would that send to the world)

This whole thing would have been finished years ago if Assange had returned to Sweden for the interview and DNA sample.(or not left the day before the interview and sample taking in the first place)

[JDPriestly]

10. Assange fears that the US wants to bring him, an Australian citizen

who committed, as far as anyone can tell, no wrong in the US or within the jurisdiction of the US, and try him under American law.

That is an awful idea. That would mean that the US could impose US law on people who are not American and merely publish information given to them by Americans, information that the US government, but other governments, considers to be classified.

That is way overreaching by the US. Because if the US can do that, what is to prevent other countries with a lot of military power imposing their laws on Americans?

The charges against Assange in Sweden would be very hard to prove. And Assange has agreed to be interviewed in the UK. Sweden has refused to do that.

It's a matter of opinion, but although rape is a serious offense, the rape charge would be extremely difficult to prove on the facts alleged against Assange. It's he said, she said, and any decision by the court will be viewed as arbitrary no matter how the court decides. So, I think the pretext is on the part of Sweden, possible encouraged by the US government. That is why I side with Assange on this.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

11. the chances that Sweden would extradite him tho is minimal

since the only theoretical crime they could try to have him extradited for would be of a political nature and that would cause a refusal based on Swedish law(as i understand it), also if there is some evidence that he might risk the death penalty or be tortured(as some supporters worry) that would also by Swedish(and EU) law cause a refusal of the extradition request.

In addition, he would actually be safer from extradition in Sweden then the UK as such an extradition request would require the consent of both Swedish AND the UK
*
I'm curious tho, would you have sided with your average joe that was accused of rape and fled the country the day before he was to have an interview with the police as well as having a DNA sample taken, then fight the extradition request for 2 years in court before jumping bail to hide out in an embassy when he loses?
**
and to head off one line of argument before it begins, Sweden can't make a promise to not have him extradited as the final word on such an extradition request would be handled by an independent Swedish court and not the government(it would also be a breach of international law that require extradition requests to be dealt with on their merits)

[JDPriestly]

14. What Sweden would or would not do is a matter of opinion.

I don't think we can be certain that they would decide Assange was a political defendant or refuse to extradite him to the US. The charges against Assange would probably be phrased in legalize that would mask the true intent.

This case is huge because it has to do with whether the First Amendment covers the expressions of political opinion and news coverage and the publication of material from whistleblowers in general on the internet. I support whistleblowers. I wish we had more of them. And, on edit, for me, the internet is the legitimate press of now and tomorrow. It is here to stay as an auxiliary and substitute for the paper publications. Judith Miller of the Times was not prosecuted for publishing Valerie Plame's name. She was considered a journalist. I believe that journalists and those who publish information or opinions on the internet should enjoy the same protection that Judith Miller enjoyed.

And then, on top of that, Assange is not an American and is not subject to US jurisdiction in this case. If Australia or the country in which he was located when he published the leaked material wants to prosecute him for something, let them.

As for rape, it has to be proved in a court of law. The allegations against Assange would be very difficult to prove thus putting in doubt the objectivity of any decision on it under these circumstances. The charge would relate to whether an attempt at sex in the morning while the woman was asleep and after what the woman described as a consensual relationship the previous night.

What in the world is the evidence to support such an allegation other than a statement by the woman? And Assange is bound to deny the allegation. Would his denial be a lie? Or was it an honest misunderstanding?

I can't believe that Sweden is pursuing such a charge. Sweden apparently has a huge problem with the illicit sex trade. (Based on from what I have read -- no link, sorry.) I'm sure Sweden has many more troubling rapes and other charges to prosecute. This one is pretty much a loser. No medical evidence? No additional witnesses? Oh, yes. I believe that Sweden permits hearsay evidence. That is positively neanderthal evidence law as far as I am concerned.

The decision would be a flip of the coin unless Assange confessed -- and he has, from what I can tell, denied the claims..

[Bodhi BloodWave]

18. this case does not have one iota to do with the US first amendment

it has do do with accusations/charges of rape and sexual abuse/molestation in Sweden.

Assange is not Wikileaks and Wikileaks is not Assange. I support the organization but not the man(and currently he is tarnishing and dragging the organization down in an effort to avoid trial)

also how do you know there is NO evidence of any sort?(and whats the relevance of the 'illicit sex trade' comment, trying to imply something about the women?).

It also sounds somewhat like your arguing to use my rephrased words destilling it down to one sentence "oh, there is a very low chance to convict in rape cases so the case should just be dropped" (hopefully thats just me misinterpreting your words tho)

Lastly; I will never consider that if i hook up with somebody that wants me to wear protection if i have sex with her to mean that I have consent the next morning to try and fuck her without protection and while she is still asleep(legally in many country that is defined as rape) since the situation are way to different from the consent given the night before.

[JDPriestly]

26. So, pretend you are the prosecutor, how are you going to prove your

claim against Assange?

Physical evidence? There is none as far as I have read.

An objective witness? Doesn't exist.

So it comes down to he said, she said and the decision as to who is more credible is necessarily subjective and probably arbitrary.

It just does not work. There are cases like that -- cases that prosecutors don't bring because the evidence is just not there. All we have is an allegation. How in the world can she prove that they had unprotected sex?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

27. Considering that I don't know what evidence they might have its impossible

to pretend to be the prosecutor and answer that.

[JDPriestly]

28. What evidence could possibly exist other than her account of it?

That makes it a he said v. she said case. And because of the political baggage impossible to decide fairly. To whom does the judge/prosecutor give the benefit of the doubt?

She could have been telling the truth, but she could have lied in order to have a better chance of getting an AIDs test that she wanted.

She may have been angry that he two-timed her and tried to get revenge. Women can be very angry when they find out that they are being two-timed.

So, how do you decide?

The judge has to make a subjective judgment. And at least in our system, the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt since you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- somewhere been 80-100% probably. That would be impossible on facts like these unless there is some witness or some physical evidence -- both of which are pretty impossible.

Pursuing these claims could be harassment, could be grandstanding by someone in Sweden, or could be a political ploy -- could be a psy-ops campaign against Assange. Who knows? But these charges would be difficult to prove.

There are cases in which claims of rape defined as sex during sleep could be proved -- with medical, physical evidence. This is not one of them. Someone is not thinking logically, not putting this puzzle together intelligently -- or has some other motive for pressing these charges.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

29. then he should simply return to sweden

do the second interview, be shown/told the evidence, give his side/explanation to shown evidence, wait for decision if it will go to trial or not(then if its judged that there is enough evidence, attend court within the 2 weeks after the interview).

If there is no case, this will be over very quickly in his favor

[JDPriestly]

30. If he were, as the British used to say, just a bloke, just a normal

guy, that would be the solution. But Assange rightfully fears that the Swedish charges are trumped up for some unrelated reason. I think he might be right.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

32. and i doubt it

the only reason Assange 'fears' trumped up charges is to avoid having to stand trial

[JDPriestly]

34. Apparently Ecuador agrees with Assange.

I can't say for sure, but my reason tells me that Assange is right.

I would genuinely be interested in how many alleged rapists are convicted each year in Sweden for rape charges similar to those alleged against Assange.

[tama]

36. Sweden has been internationally criticized

for having exceptionally high rate of rape charges without conviction. Some Swedish - some of them connected to this case - have defended and justified the practice on sexist grounds, that false rape charges work as deterrent against males or "patriarchal" society, for which all men are collectively responsible - and should even pay a special tax on men.

[Bacchus4.0]

21. the First Amendment is applicable in the US. other countries have their own constitutions

and laws so he's bound by those wherever he is. Since there is little chance of conviction as you say, then there is nothing to fear by going to Sweden.

[tama]

15. Averadge Joe

Would not have first learned the rape allegations from the front page of a tabloid. Or been invited by AA to stay in her flat for negotiating Wikileaks deal with Pirate Party servers and applying for residence in Sweden.

[AntiFascist]

17. You need to read this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html

"To the extent there are gaps in our laws," Holder continued, "we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing." He did not indicate that Assange is being investigated for possible violations of the Espionage Act.

...

"But when it comes to Assange, Jeffrey H. Smith, a former CIA general counsel, said: "I'm confident that the Justice Department is figuring out how to prosecute him."

Smith noted that State Department general counsel Harold H. Koh had sent a letter to Assange on Saturday urging him not to release the cables, to return all classified material and to destroy all classified records from WikiLeaks databases.

"That language is not only the right thing to do policy-wise but puts the government in a position to prosecute him," Smith said. Under the Espionage Act, anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe it could harm the United States may be prosecuted if he publishes it or "willfully" retains it when the government has demanded its return, Smith said."


Here's information about a secret indictment against Assange:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228

[Bodhi BloodWave]

19. and the US is free to decide how they want to charge him(assuming they do)

and make a request for extradition to Sweden who will have an independent Swedish court decide the case on its merits and rule for or against as required by international law

That however is not relevant to if Assange should face trial for the crimes he is accused of in Sweden

[AntiFascist]

20. I'm not concerned with whether or not Assange should face trial for rape...

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

and the point of this sub-thread is why Assange is resisting extradition to Sweden.

He has a lot to fear if he is subsequently extraditied to the US, and inprisonment in Sweden might indeed be preferable to what the US has in store for him and other WikiLeaks perpetrators. Australian officials have also discussed having him face charges of treason there. This could get very complicated for him if he leaves the safety of asylum.

[Matilda]

23. The Australian Government has no intention of having Assange extradited.

He hasn't committed any crime here, and that has been publicly confirmed by the Australian Federal Police. They tried to find something, mind you, but failed. They also investigated whether they had grounds for confiscating his passport, but that too came up negative.

But according to diplomatic cables obtained by the Sydney Morning Herald under FOI laws, Australia doesn't have a problem with Assange being extradited to the U.S., they have only asked to be informed in advance. Why, I don't know, because I'm sure they don't intend to do anything to stop it.

Link to SMH story:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html

[AntiFascist]

24. Here's what I'm referring to:

In December, after WikiLeaks released 250,000 confidential US State Department cables, Mr McClelland instructed federal police to examine whether any Australian laws had been broken. The police said no Australian offence had been committed.

However, on September 20 the department gave Mr McClelland's office a briefing note that mentioned treason under the heading ''Commonwealth offences relating to unauthorised disclosure of information''. It said: ''This offence carries a penalty of imprisonment for life.''

This revelation will not be welcome news to Mr Assange, an Australian citizen. In a recorded address to Melbourne supporters last month, he called on the Gillard government to promise he would be safe if he returned.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/government-considered-assange-treason-charge-20110311-1br8n.html#ixzz24EeUD1G4

So, although Australia may not have formally called for his extradition, there was the implication that he could be tried for treason. Also, edited my previous post accordingly.

WikiLeaks also has evidence that Australia is cooperating with the US DoD in its investigation.

[Matilda]

25. Since then, the situation has changed.

That was early 2011, and Robert McClelland is no longer Attorney-General (because he supported Kevin Rudd in his leadership challenge to Julia Gillard early this year). The AFP have subsequently found that there is nothing Assange can be charged with under Australian law.

But the government are definitely putting no impediments in the way of the U.S. extraditing Assange, and I'm sure if it happens we won't hear a peep out them. They will continue to march in step with whatever tune the U.S. plays.

[AntiFascist]

33. We are hearing something interesting from Australia's media...

several days ago there was this interesting article that directly mentions an investigation of criminal conduct by Assange (apparently not just what he knows about Bradley Manning) and how Australia's US embassy is passing secret intelligence files on Assange and Wikileaks:

Julian Assange continues to be the subject of Australian intelligence reports more than a year after the WikiLeaks website published thousands of leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

In a recent freedom of information decision, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed to Fairfax Media the existence of at least two intelligence reports concerning WikiLeaks and Mr Assange from Australia's embassy to the US in February and March this year

...

But, as the Herald revealed yesterday, Australia's Washington embassy reported in February that "the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year". A spokesman for Senator Carr acknowledged yesterday that WikiLeaks could be linked to that investigation but insisted that did not mean the US was intent on extraditing Mr Assange.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-secret-assange-files-20120818-24f9c.html#ixzz24IyqoI00

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. Britain rejects the very diplomatic solution it says it seeks: Safe passage for Assange.

[Bacchus4.0]

22. Britain is quite willing to give him safe passage. To Sweden n/t

s

[lib2DaBone]

12. Obviously the U.S. wants Assange... trying to cover up torture and death by drones

Why doesn't Mr. Obama (who claims he believes in freedom and justice , even though he approved NDAA ), call off his attack dogs?

Mr. Obama seems like he is unwilling or unable to stand up to the MIC who want to silence any and all whistle blowers.

[musiclawyer]

16. Assange may have to publish some of what he has

so the whole world can see why the USA wants him and why this is such a grotesque charade. He's probably waiting until the elections are over. The USA offered something of value to Sweden. The rape charges are either BS or pretext. If it was simply about the rape chartges Sweden could easily say this is simply a domestic crime and he is not getting extradited anywhere.

[GliderGuider]

31. Suuure they are.

How naive was Julian Assange?

I've come to think that his naivete runs so deep it's pretty well indistinguishable from rock-hard stupid.

Not about the Swedish charges and whether he should or shouldn't have traveled to the UK - that's a mere bagatelle. His reaction there may have been symptomatic of his mindset, but it's not the main evidence.

The real evidence of his criminally stupid naivete was his apparent failure of the imagination when it came to understanding what a fully aroused intel/diplomatic/financial system was prepared to do to him. Announcing simultaneously that he was going to dump a bunch of damaging diplomatic secrets AND that he was going to go after the banks? What did he think was going to happen, that they would wring their handkerchiefs in panic and reach for the smelling salts?

He utterly failed to foresee what would happen - that a group of nameless, faceless men in pinstripes would gather in a boardroom and say something like, "OK, enough is enough. Who the fuck does he think he is? Do the little twerp. NOW." And that they would then make just one snowballing phone call that would turn his entire life to shit.

Not to have understood that there are men who will really take the gloves off in the face of that kind of threat, who will do literally anything, use every resource at their considerable disposal to protect their ability to bleed the system in secret - that's a failure born of hubris, which is Assange's real crime. No matter how he dodges and weaves now, I'm afraid he's going to pay the piper eventually, in ways he (and we) can't even begin to imagine.

Don't get me wrong. I think what he did in releasing all those documents was admirable and maybe even heroic, but his courage turned first to brashness and then to hubris - and that was his undoing. I think that what's being done to him, and what will be done to him in the coming months and years, is unconscionable. But he's up against an enemy that doesn't have a conscience. All they want is plausible deniability so they can go back to bleeding the system in secret like they want.

Assange had a classic Achilles heel that was very easy to spot, and his opponents had no compunction at all about using it to bring him down. In his lack of clear understanding of the situation he was the author of his own misfortune, like so many heroes in Greek tragedies.

Assange is screwed six ways from Sunday. This thing isn't a rape case against an odious, arrogant man. It's actually a classic Greek tragedy, with Assange playing the part of Icarus, Achilles, and Agamemnon. Make no mistake, he angered the Gods. Sophocles himself couldn't have written a better script.

All that's left now for the rest of us (the real victims of the story, the ones that Julian was trying to save) is to argue over the meaning of "rape" and whether or not he should have tried to flout Swedish law - and to wish that the world was a place where hard men didn't win.

[Nihil]

35. Excellent post.

The only thing that's been saving him from an "accident" is the need to keep
him from being a martyr - and yes, to the State-department warriors here,
that includes the "Why didn't the US snatch him from the street in the last
few years" option as well as the more traditional methods.


> Make no mistake, he angered the Gods. Sophocles himself couldn't have
> written a better script.

Not just the hubris of angering the modern gods but also the Cassandra effect
thanks to the ongoing undermining of his character. It's amazing how powerful
the word "rape" is in feeding the "no smoke without fire" bullshit artists. I guess
that it's only because they can't get hold of any computer that is demonstrably
Assange's that they haven't tried the "child porn images" frame as well. (Maybe
that's next month's installment?)

In an age where blatantly obvious scientific evidence is waved away for petty
political reasons, when a state will outlaw the fact of sea level rise, when the
refusal of a long-termexpert to doctor his evidence leads to his murder ...
how many of the ignorant sheep are really going to pay attention to the facts
of gross financial & political corruption, to war crimes by their own countries or
to admissions that serious global turmoil is not only ahead but proceeding
according to plan?

It's so much easier to just change channels to find comfort pap for their
underused minds, to place their faith in the con-men who fleece them for every
penny (in order to maintain their own luxury lifestyles) and to obey their
uncaring "leaders" by dutifully baying after every shiny distraction that is
thrown in front of them.