Ecuador grants Julian Assange asylum

I'm renouncing my Amnesty International-funding credit card on this. The silence on their part, when this charade goes on <i>on their doorstep</i> in London, is deafening.<p>The same goes for LibDems and Labour, but I've given up on them a long time ago (and to be fair, Labour are not even in power). Human/civil rights was just about the last platform where LibDems had a shred of credibility, and now it's shot. To maintain a few perks, they will let the Tories destroy centuries of civilisation - the Vienna Convention is a cornerstone of international relations, and hence, of world peace; threatening it over a silly man is just irresponsible. Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador and old-time LibDem, is just about as shocked as I am, and it's the only reasonable voice I've heard in the last 24 hours: <a href="http://pastebin.com/s98KhnYD" rel="nofollow">http://pastebin.com/s98KhnYD</a><p>Supporting journalists in Belarus, China, Syria, Iran without supporting Assange is not grassroot activism: it's cynical, masqueraded foreign policy.

I strongly doubt that Britain will take sudden action to arrest Assange in the embassy. What's likely to happen now is a stand off where he can't get out of the embassy because he'll be arrested. The UK and Ecuador will try to negotiate some sort of deal where Assange does go to Sweden to be questioned. Given that European states don't have the death penalty Assange would not be extradited to the US if there was a risk of him facing death there.<p>If he leaves he'll be arrested, if he manages to get in a diplomatic car the car will be stopped with Assange in it and there'll be a stand off. If Ecuador tries to make him into a diplomat the UK can simply refuse to accept that he is a diplomat. And if they try to use a diplomatic bag then the UK will claim that it's being used for improper purposes and block it. IMHO Assange is stuck there until a deal is worked out.<p>The granting of asylum is just one step in what will continue to be a tedious soap opera.<p>My interpretation of the letter that the FO sent to Ecuador is as a statement of a negotiating position given that the FO got wind of the fact that he was going to be offered asylum.

The British didn't seem quite so committed to extraditing Augusto Pinochet. This despite the fact that he had been indicted for crimes against humanity, not simply wanted for questioning as is the case for Mr. Assange.<p>In the case of Pinochet, there were four extradition requests: Spain, Belgium, Switzerland and France.<p>However, the British government took Mr. Pinochet's frail health into account and ultimately released him.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_August...</a>

I am ecuadorian and currently live in Ecuador. Granting assylum to Assange is just a PR move from our government. You might not be aware of this, but our 'president' won a lawsuit for US$ 40 Mio against the 'El Universo' newspaper just because an editor wrote an article critizing him. In Ecuador government CENSORSHIP rules. Hopefully Assange can make it to Ecuador and then realizes with the type of people he got involved with and gets out of here. It so WRONG to have our government be depicted as standing for liberty, freedom of speech, by granting assylum to assange. Please do some research. This goverment is all but that!!!!!!

I'd love to know what Assange's endgame plan for all of this fuss is.<p>The States aren't going to extradite him from Sweden nor, evidently, from the UK. It makes me feel like a kiljoy to say it, but there isn't any conspiracy here, and nor will any play out. Let's face it - everything will play out normally and boringly, no matter how many people shout "conspiracy!"<p>My gut instinct is that one way or another he'll end up in Sweden, either walking free or serving a year or two in jail, and then - what? Sitting in Parisian cafes gazing wistfully upon what once could have been?

How often do you get see governments threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy for the sake of apprehending a rape suspect? Wow.

He is not going to make it to Ecuador. Only thing Assange can do now is sit inside the embassy for indefinite period of time, until Ecuador gets bored with assange and figures he is not worth the damage of ties with Uk. another possible outcome is rather extreme -- UK goes on offences and arrests assange from the embassy.<p>Either way, it would be interesting how the whole story will play-out.

Everything seems so extreme about this saga: a "leaker" is accused of not using contraception (i.e., leaking) in a (possibly) covert plot by the US to subject him to the very same treatment his leaks so shockingly revealed. Then he turns himself into a public target for the US and its allies, thus rendering their actual disregard for human rights and tendency for over-the-top aggressiveness explicit and embarrassing, in a manner which is actually much more effective and public than his site's leaks.<p>A bona fide political circus, in which the main performer, Assange, turns out to be an extremely talented clown.

I don't like this as precedent. If there's one thing we've learned from Wikileaks, it's that evidence of wrongdoing should be out in the open. This is a back-room deal between Assange and Ecuador to give him asylum as protection from a claimed US government conspiracy, but where's the proof? If it's good enough to convince the government of Ecuador, it's good enough to post publicly.

Reading down through all of the comments, I can see that people have a totally mixed opinion of how this can happen. Some people think that the US have no intention of wanting to extradite and charge Assange, but Assange and his counsel have repeatedly (in the last month) requested that the US make a statement confirming this. The matter of the fact is, many high profile American's have said that he should be killed, and put to death.<p>Onto the other topic of the rape charges, I think some people don't fully understand the facts surrounding the charge. I didn't either until I spent thirty minutes and read this article: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...</a><p>But from this transcript... these are the key points:<p>-------------<p>The "sexual assault/rape/molestation" charges were filed after two women Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen went to the police to seek advice if they could compel Assange to take a STD test since they did not use a condom during sex.<p>Both of the women went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm, however, it is mentioned that Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen.<p>Ardin had been frequently in the company of Assange. She had previously described him as such a "cool man" (Twitter). They also arrived and left together at a Crayfish party (equivalent of a cocktail party). Ardin was sharing accomodation with Assange and had refused an offer from someone else for temporary accomodation.<p>The day after the accusation of rape and molesation Ardin sent a SMS saying : "I've just spent some time with the coolest people in the world".<p>SMS text messages were also exchanged between Sofia and Ardin, which showed that the two of them knew of the relationship between each other and Assange.<p>Ardin responded to a friend who was looking for Assange : "He's not here. He's planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?"<p>The Swedish police, totally railroaded the investigation. Interviews have been leaked with Assange, and Wilen commented initially "that she became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.". Assange went freely for interview to the police station and was released without immediate charge, and was free to travel. Almost immediately there after, another warrant was issued for his arrest.<p>Eventually, it was also upgraded to an Interpol "Red Notice".<p>It's alleged (from the transcripts), that Sweden has frankly always been the United States' lap dog and it's not a matter we are particularly proud of. The Swedish Government has... essentially, whenever a US official says, "Jump", the Sweden Government asks, "How high?"<p>Assange's legal team are clearly trying to point out that US is coercing all of this behind the scenes so that he can then be extradited from Sweden and face trial for conspiracy to commit espionage.<p>&#62; The burden should be on the United States Government to say, "We are not planning to prosecute Julian Assange". If they just gave that assurance, I can guarantee you that Julian Assange would go to Sweden tomorrow.<p>----------------<p>This is hugely and unequivocally politically motivated. I'm British, and I am largely ashamed that pressure is not being placed on Sweden by the foreign minister to have them reinvestigate the extradition request. Also, Sweden will, and has previously done all it can to scratch America's back.<p>Assange should stay put, until US says "we will not pursue extradition from Sweden". (Which they will not do.)

The problem with Assange is while he is courageous, he is also morally weak. It's his utter lack of morals that has given his enemies so much ammunition.<p>I support Assange, although not without reservation, and I refuse to speak out for him in public because of his rape charges (charges which have not been proven).<p>I doubt he will successfully flee the UK.<p>To paraphrase the old Radiohead song, Assange, "you did it to yourself".

The UK has asserted[0] that they have a legal basis for arresting Assange even while he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy. They cite the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987; the counterpoint is the Vienna convention and centuries worth of international law.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-asylum" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-e...</a>

An angle that seems to be forgotten here is the political bind the UK government finds itself in. On the one hand, they cannot afford to violate territoriality of the Ecuadoran embassy (legally or not) - on the other, they also cannot afford to break the terms of their extradition treaty with Sweden.<p>Either outcome will see the UK have further problems on the world stage, and neither is something they can easily negotiate their way out of. In such a situation, it might be imagined that they would rather risk their reputation with the rest of the world than alienate their allies.

I don't understand all of these people suggesting that once Assange is in international waters he is somehow safe.<p>The US will just stop the Ecuadoran vessel, board it, and take Assange. We've got historic precedent for their lack of Give a Fuck in situations of this nature.

Obviously he has every right to be paranoid about the US trying to extradite him but you have to wonder how far he's willing to go on this. I think the Assange story long ago eclipsed the Wikileaks story (look how little attention Bradley Manning gets) and if he was prosecuted and convicted of rape in Sweden and had to do jail time there, I think the story would only be remembered for Assange. No need for a very messy public trial after extradition, no need for the miles of bad press it would generate.

What is really being discussed here, without saying it explicitly, is whether it's OK for the United States to go after it's perceived enemies in other countries, for crimes committed outside the USA that violate USA laws, and bring them home to face trial, whether or not they are US citizens. And lets just call a spade a spade. It's clearly the "United States of Sweden".

Sometimes it looks like authoritarian governments can learn a thing or two from "democratic" countries.<p>When Chen Guangcheng sought refuge in the American embassy, the Chinese govt didn't use any trumped up criminal charges against him as an excuse to threaten to invade the American embassy and arrest Mr Chen.<p>Britain is threatening to invade the embassy of Ecuador by using a local 1987 law to revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy. Next time around, the Chinese and every authoritarian govt around the world will know how to handle any asylum seekers in any British embassy in the world.

For perspective, Bradly Manning his under 24 hour gaurd and observation. He must strip nude every morning before his female and male guards. He is allowed no mail. He never sees the sky or breathes fresh air.<p>Some of this is for his protection they say.<p>Assange is wise to fear the wrath of the USA and its special friend the UK.

In failure to deliver my sentiment in proper wording (and I've scratched the written few times), I'll just quote one of my personal heroes:<p><i>"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."</i> ~ Frank Zappa

I find the points and counterpoints on the Assange issue rather confusing and it's hard for me, as an observer, to separate fact from fiction. I'm wondering if someone can clear up some points:<p>1. Apparently there is a two-stage interview process in Sweden with criminal investigations. A first interview, which Assange has done, and a second that is equivalent to being charged. Is this true?<p>2. It has been argued that Swedish authorities have done interviews in embassies and other countries in other cases but have refused to do so here. In those other cases, are they first or second interviews (assuming (1) is correct)?<p>3. Has the US formally charged, indicated they would charge, sought extradition or otherwise indicated they would seek extradition of Assange or is it merely assumed?<p>4. Is there any substantive difference in extradition proceedings from the UK or Sweden? The US could seek extradition from the UK. It is argued by Assange's defenders that it is easier from Sweden and a UK judge may well throw out the request as being politically motivated whereas extradition from Sweden, it is argued, can be done politically rather than through the courts. How true is this?<p>5. Sweden has refused to not extradite Assange, should he return, to the US. How normal is this? Can Sweden legally do this? I know EU countries have, in the past, as a condition of extradition required the US to guarantee that the death penalty won't be sought or applied. I assume in those cases that is a real issue so it seems like there is some room for movement when it comes to extradition;<p>6. What is the status of Assange's legal proceedings against extradition to Sweden? The High Court has ruled I believe so the only recourse now is the European Court of Human Rights? Is that still ongoing? Can it make a binding ruling against extradition that the UK must abide by?<p>7. When it comes to criminal charges in any country I'm familiar with there are two things: how the law is written and how it is applied. Many things are illegal that the authorities don't actively pursue. Partially this is simply convention, partially its policing and partially (IMHO) it's holding things in reserve, meaning if you really want to get someone you have something. Is this also the case for Sweden? Given the facts as (publicly) known regarding the rape allegations, how normal is it to seek criminal charges in this case?<p>8. With regards to political asylum. How normal is it for a country to offer political asylum to someone in another country who is a citizen of a third country resisting extradition to a fourth? Hell, you can probably add "because of fears of being extradited to a fifth"!<p>Assange is an Australian citizen. As an Australian citizen myself I'm disappointed but not at all surprised in the silence of the Australian government on this issue and the apparent acquiescence to US demands. It's often pointed out that citizenship is not only a privilege but a responsibility. The government likewise has a responsibility to defend the interests of its citizens and I see that sadly lacking here.

I'd like to see a prediction market now for whether or not Assange makes it to Ecuador...

A movie script couldn't do better: Assange's lawyer is Baltazar Garzon, the Spanish ex-judge who asked London for the extradition of Pinochet.

Assange's credibility: shot.<p><a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/tag/Ecuador/" rel="nofollow">http://www.indexoncensorship.org/tag/Ecuador/</a><p>I suppose he's going to live his life like Roman Polanski, on the run from rape charges.

Whenever I see a new post about this saga I feel compelled to post this mini documentary about it before everyone gets into the same old arguments.<p>Sex, Lies and Julian Assange <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...</a>

To be honest, I think what we have here is a case of cognitive dissonance - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance</a><p>People admire Assange for what he has done as part of wikileaks, whilst also simultaneously loathing rapists.<p>I felt the same when Mike Tyson was convicted of rape. As a follower of boxing, I was a huge fan of his power and skill. And then he got convicted of rape.<p>I tried to tell myself that it was a fix, the "victim" was after his money etc etc. But now I realise that both things are true. He was one of the best boxers ever, and he did rape that woman.<p>Steve Jobs could be a fantastic businessman and innovator, <i>and</i> a bit of an arsehole to work with.<p>Benjamin Britten could be a great composer <i>and</i> sexually attracted to youg boys.<p>Assange could be a brave "dissident" <i>and</i> sexually taken advantage of those two women.

Best wishes to assange in his quest to make the most secretive regimes of the world transparent. Less governments the better! Humanity do not need extra ordinary hijackers, tramplers of human rights and surveillance junkies.

<i>Mr. Patiño said his government had made its decision after the authorities in Britain, Sweden and the United States refused to give guarantees that, if Mr. Assange were extradited to Sweden, he would not then be sent on to the United States to face other charges.</i><p>This is key, and pretty much proves what's going on. They didn't want to take extradition to the US off the table, yet supposedly this is only about answering to rape charges.

Ecuador: "We are not a colony from the UK".<p>EPIC.

I agree with this Toronto Globe and Mail editorial on the issue:<p><a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/ecuador-should-not-give-assange-asylum-and-he-should-step-out-and-defend-himself/article4484914/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/ecuador...</a><p>"As for Mr. Assange, he should step out of doors and defend himself."

Why are now British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden, but British Court released V. Antonov on bail when Lithuania asked UK to extradite him to Lithuania?

What if Ecuador make him an Ecuadorian diplomat?<p>Somehow I feel that when this is over, he'll return to Australia and make a quick political career and become very influential.

I'm just going to leave this here:<p><pre><code> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine</code></pre>

Is there a particular reason why Assange chose to ask political asylum in Ecuador?

I am fascinated to see how they will physically transport him from the embassy to a plane. This has the makings of a top quality chase movie.

The Minister of the Exterior's decision was... <i>highly</i> charged. He seemed to be making a stand for all of South America.

A 1994 study by Dr. Eugene Kanin of Purdue University revealed that 41% of rape allegations are fabrications.<p>The Innocence Project reports that the number one crime for which they release wrongfully convicted individuals from prison is rape.<p>Why are these women not in prison? <a href="http://www.register-her.com/index.php?title=Main_Page" rel="nofollow">http://www.register-her.com/index.php?title=Main_Page</a>

A bit more information has come to light. A respected broadsheet newspaper here in Australia has requested some diplomatic cables under the Freedom of Information Act and reports that the Australian diplomatic service believes that the US will attempt to extradite Assange.<p><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-c...</a>

And all just to keep a website on/off the internet.