Assange granted asylum by Ecuador
 

UK threatened to storm the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador[/url]

[QUOTE] Assange clearly has a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to be extradited to Sweden. It is pretty much acknowledged that he would be immediately thrown in jail. Since he is not charged with any crime, and the Swedish government has no legitimate reason to bring him to Sweden, this by itself is a form of persecution.We can infer that the Swedes have no legitimate reason for the extradition, since they were repeatedly offered the opportunity to question him in the UK, but rejected it, and have also refused to even put forth a reason for this refusal. A few weeks ago the Ecuadorian government offered to allow Assange to be questioned in its London embassy, where Assange has been residing since 19 June, but the Swedish government refused – again without offering a reason. This was an act of bad faith in the negotiating process that has taken place between governments to resolve the situation.
Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem also made it clear that the Swedish government had no legitimate reason to seek Assange's extradition when he testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is "[URL="http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem"]unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate[/URL]", because he could be easily questioned in the UK.
[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-asylum-live[/url]

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-political-asylum-ecuador[/url]

Discuss.

Don't forget Bradley Manning
 

Oh yeah, this is what he said when the decision was made public:

[QUOTE][INDENT] 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.
While today much of the focus will be on the decision of the Ecuadorean government, it is just as important that we remember Bradley Manning has been detained without trial for over 800 days.
The task of protecting WikiLeaks, its staff, its supporters and its alleged sources continues.
[/INDENT][/QUOTE]

Re. the jackbooted thuggery employed by the US, UK (disappointed but not surprised there - both of those nations ceased being anything other than sad parodies of representative democracy years ago) and much to my surprise and disappointment, Sweden - I am reminded of the quote by Benjamin Franklin:

[i]"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."[/i].

My question is, why did the US not ask UK to extradite him? As far as I know there is no indictment. Does the US think they do not have enough evidence to charge him and they just wanted to give him enemy combatant status?

And why did Sweden not agree to question him in the UK, especially since they have not yet filed charges. Why didn't they file charges? And didn't the prosecutor first drop the charges and then change their mind?

Regarding Sweden, they have shown great cooperation in all the extraordinary renditions so they are no better than the UK. You might have been thinking Norway who are a lot more independent minded. In the words of a UCLA professor "the (so-called) international community are just patsies for the US".

[QUOTE=garo;308182]My question is, why did the US not ask UK to extradite him? As far as I know there is no indictment. Does the US think they do not have enough evidence to charge him and they just wanted to give him enemy combatant status?[/QUOTE]
Much preferable to have an {allegedly) independent country do one's dirty work for one, isn't it?

[QUOTE]And why did Sweden not agree to question him in the UK, especially since they have not yet filed charges. Why didn't they file charges? And didn't the prosecutor first drop the charges and then change their mind?[/QUOTE]
That litany of bizarreness points to a political persecution occurring under cover of crime inquiry.

[QUOTE]Regarding Sweden, they have shown great cooperation in all the extraordinary renditions so they are no better than the UK. You might have been thinking Norway who are a lot more independent minded. In the words of a UCLA professor "the (so-called) international community are just patsies for the US".[/QUOTE]
You're probably right - weird, Sweden and Norway seem so similar in so many other of their democratic and social traditions.

The reader comments on the Guardian piece are amusing, BTW - rabid nationalism run amok. The just-deport-him-already "arguments" seem to boil down to 3 categories:

1. Assange is a right tit - Agreed, but respecting the legal rights of a despised person or minority has always been the truest test of supposed democracies, hasn't it?

2. Assange is accused of grave crimes in Sweden: Cf. garo's comments on the bizarre "criminal procedures" followed by the Swedes, and their refusal to even preliminary-question him in the UK.

3. Embassies are not "sovereign territory" - Say what now? As [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-west-has-just-become-giant-banana-republic]Simon Black notes[/url], [i]'Embassies are hallowed sovereign ground, not to be trespassed. Ever. This is the most sacrosanct, fundamental, inviolable principle of international relations, explicitly codified in both the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963).'[/i]

I am gratified to see the views of intelligent persons on this issue. Assange did the world a great favor by revealing US hypocrisy and duplicity.

[QUOTE=kladner;308211]I am gratified to see the views of intelligent persons on this issue. Assange did the world a great favor by revealing US hypocrisy and duplicity.[/QUOTE]

True and his revelations have a lot of people running scared. So even though one may have reservations about his methods, the overall impact of the revelation can only be positive in the long run. It is a timely reminder to all those who after the fall of the Soviet union had started dreaming of a Utopian New World Order that countries are driven by realpolitik and not morals.

Now I am not sure about the substance of the charges laid against him. From what I have read his sexual practices may well have been dubious. But whether they crossed the line of breaking the law is something we may unfortunately never find out. That is a pity.

Will the thought police on Mersenneforum allow me to escape to Equador or die in peace?

Harrassed of Tunbridge Wells.

[QUOTE=davieddy;308261]Will the thought police on Mersenneforum allow me to escape to Equador or die in peace?[/QUOTE]

You made your bed. Now sleep in it.

I know he's supposed to be safe at the embassy, but what about when they try to transport him from the embassy to the embassy's country?

They could try to keep it a secret, but there could be a really dangerous clash between police or military and the transport vehicle.

[QUOTE=jasong;308320]I know he's supposed to be safe at the embassy, but what about when they try to transport him from the embassy to the embassy's country?[/QUOTE]

Article 22, paragraph 3: "The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon [B][I][U]and the means of transport[/U][/I][/B] of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

[QUOTE=chalsall;308349]Article 22, paragraph 3: "The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon [B][I][U]and the means of transport[/U][/I][/B] of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.[/QUOTE]

It seems that the Brits are flirting with defiance. What I've heard suggested is that even if they could get Assange into an immune car, there's still the problem of getting from the car to a plane. I don't know if there would be a difference if Ecuador sent a government plane. If he could step from the car to a stair which was part of the plane he would not set foot on UK soil (or tarmac.)

[QUOTE=kladner;308355]It seems that the Brits are flirting with defiance. What I've heard suggested is that even if they could get Assange into an immune car, there's still the problem of getting from the car to a plane. I don't know if there would be a difference if Ecuador sent a government plane. If he could step from the car to a stair which was part of the plane he would not set foot on UK soil (or tarmac.)[/QUOTE]

It would not matter if it was an Ecuador government plane, or simply one sanctioned by them for the job at hand -- even if it was only one seat of that plane.

And if the Brits really wanted to get anal, it can be argued that one's own (or another's) feet (or a wheelchair) are forms of transport.

[QUOTE=kladner;308355]It seems that the Brits are flirting with defiance. What I've heard suggested is that even if they could get Assange into an immune car, there's still the problem of getting from the car to a plane. I don't know if there would be a difference if Ecuador sent a government plane. If he could step from the car to a stair which was part of the plane he would not set foot on UK soil (or tarmac.)[/QUOTE]There are many ways around that. For instance, a car could be driven directly onto a cargo plane. A car could be driven outside UK jurisdiction, either by Eurostar or ferry. It could be driven onto a Ecuadorean ship.

Does the embassy have an internal carpark, or would he have to walk on to the sidewalk to a car waiting at the kerb?

[QUOTE=xilman;308403]There are many ways around that. For instance, a car could be driven directly onto a cargo plane. A car could be driven outside UK jurisdiction, either by Eurostar or ferry. It could be driven onto a Ecuadorean ship.[/QUOTE]

Interesting ideas, all!

Might this all inspire something in a future James Bond film?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;308460]Might this all inspire something in a future James Bond film?[/QUOTE]

James Bond leaking state never-should-have-been-secrets?

It isn't much of a life that Assange has now. Living out his time in the Embassy is hardly a life worth living at all. And even if he does get to Ecuador by some magic teleportation he would still be unable to travel from there without the threat of [strike]the US[/strike] Sweden grabbing him from another country.

[QUOTE=retina;310948]It isn't much of a life that Assange has now. Living out his time in the Embassy is hardly a life worth living at all. And even if he does get to Ecuador by some magic teleportation he would still be unable to travel from there without the threat of [strike]the US[/strike] Sweden grabbing him from another country.[/QUOTE]
You could have said the same thing about Burmese activist/political-prisoner [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi]Aung San Suu Kyee for most of the past 2 decades[/url]. Even the most thuggish regimes don't last forever.

(I realize this comparison is setting the bar really, really low for such "champions of democracy and human rights" as the UK and US, but that is what defenders of their political thuggery like to do, so let's go with that.)