Vivienne Westwood uses London Fashion Week to declare support for Assange

[reorg]

Source: The Telegraph

Dame Vivienne Westwood used a London Fashion Week show held at the Foreign Office to declare a message of support for Julian Assange.

By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor
16 Sep 2012

The veteran British fashion designer handed out T-shirts bearing her photo and the slogan “I’m Julian Assange” to models and celebrities in the front row.

Her move will be seen as provocative because the show was held in the headquarters of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, off Whitehall, which is caught in a diplomatic stand-off over the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition.

The model Jade Parfitt was photographed wearing one of the pro-Assange T-shirts during the event on Sunday afternoon.

Lorraine Candy, the editor-in-chief of Elle UK magazine, posted a picture of the model online, together with the message: “Jade in Assange supporter Tshirt V Westwood has designed! It's going to be controversial show at foreign office!”

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9546467/Vivienne-Westwood-uses-London-Fashion-Week-to-declare-support-for-Assange.html

---

hm ...

[jberryhill]

1. No - Designer uses Assange to get press during Fashion Week

Sounds like something Edina and Patsy would think of.

"Ooh, Wikileaks, dahling, yes...are they the ones who published Prince Harry's naked photos or Kate's tits?"

[dipsydoodle]

4. She doesn't need side issue press coverage.

Her stuff stands alone.

[KoKo]

8. Actually her show was to feature Climate Change....

from the article:

"The novelist Kathy Lette wrote on Twitter: “V Tongue-in-chic 4 foreign office. Models in T-shirts emblazoned with V. Westwood's face, sloganed -I'm Julian Assange.”

However when Dame Vivienne herself appeared on the catwalk, set up in the Grade I-listed Durbar Court of the Foreign Office building, she dropped a shroud to reveal a T-shirt with the words “Climate Revolution” on it.

Last month the 71-year-old designer, who came to prominence selling punk clothes with Malcolm McLaren, issued another public statement in support of Mr Assange.

The message, which included the phrase “we are all Julian Assange”, was delivered outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in Knightsbridge where he has been holed up for almost three months. "

[struggle4progress]

11. A picture of herself labelled "I'm Julian Assange" sure calls awareness to climate, doesn't it?

[KoKo]

15. Yes...It was an incredible show of PRINCIPLES! That she did this

considering how esteemed she is in British Fashion World!

Good for her. And to show her 71 year old body in support of doing something about Climate Change is even Better!

to Vivienne Westwood!

[bitchkitty]

24. That's Vivienne Westwood, fool!

She hardly needs gimmicks.

[Firebrand Gary]

2. Somewhat off topic, about Vivienne's line.

I love, love the mens cardigan! However its like $900, which is out of my league! But I still love it...

[DesertDiamond]

3. WoW!!! She's awesome!

[davidthegnome]

5. Okay, but is there a reason to actually care?

[randome]

6. If I was Assange, I'd care.

That picture of him on the t-shirt looks horrible! Maybe it's the angle but he looks like an old vampire!

[KoKo]

7. According to the article, that's Vivienne Westwood's photo on T-Shirt

Last edited Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

The show was about Climate Change and that's Westwood in the picture on the right with the circle around her eye with the T-Shirt for "Climate Revolution."

From the article:

"The novelist Kathy Lette wrote on Twitter: “V Tongue-in-chic 4 foreign office. Models in T-shirts emblazoned with V. Westwood's face, sloganed -I'm Julian Assange.”

However when Dame Vivienne herself appeared on the catwalk, set up in the Grade I-listed Durbar Court of the Foreign Office building, she dropped a shroud to reveal a T-shirt with the words “Climate Revolution” on it.

Last month the 71-year-old designer, who came to prominence selling punk clothes with Malcolm McLaren, issued another public statement in support of Mr Assange.

The message, which included the phrase “we are all Julian Assange”, was delivered outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in Knightsbridge where he has been holed up for almost three months. "

[treestar]

9. The office is not "caught in a diplomatic standoff"

That makes it sounds as though Julian did not create the situation with the help of Ecuador. They are doing nothing. The storming of the embassy is another one of Julian's not-happening dramas.

[Peace Patriot]

10. The U.K. threatened IN WRITING to storm the Ecuadoran embassy!

That alone shows the U.S. poodle--the U.K.--to be suffering a hissy fit about their failure to GET JULIAN ASSANGE INTO CUSTODY to be "rendered" to their U.S. masters for whatever punishment they want to inflict for the crime of journalism.

When the Swedish government kicked out one prosecutor--who thought that the allegations against Assange were so flimsy and absurd, he dropped the case and told Assange he could leave Sweden--and brought in a more politically ambitious prosecutor who revived this ridiculous case and has refused to question Assange no matter how often Assange has made himself available for questioning, and HAS NO CASE against Assange (NO charges have been filed)--then Assange had PLENTY OF GODDAMN REASON to seek asylum!

Jeez. You are blaming the VICTIM. The man is being HUNTED by the Western Powers for the SAME 'CRIME' that the once great New York Times--now the New York Slimes--committed, long ago, in their days of courage and integrity, when they published the Pentagon Papers. The crime of journalism. The crime of FREE SPEECH.

The granting of asylum for political persecution and the threat of persecution is the right of every recognized government in the world. Julian Assange has the right of free speech--not to mention the associated rights of free assembly, travel, ownership/security of assets, presumption of innocence, habeas corpus and everything else we have ever stood for as a country-- and Ecuador has the right to grant him asylum to protect those rights. The UK refuses to acknowledge Ecuador's right to do this, by refusing to grant Assange passage to Ecuador. THAT is an "embassy standoff" created by the UK in their poodledom for the U.S.!

[hack89]

14. No they did not.

After Patino's brief appearance before reporters, Britain's Foreign Office issued a statement citing a 1987 British law it says permits the revocation of diplomatic status of a building if the foreign power occupying it "ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post."

Under international law, diplomatic posts are considered the territory of the foreign nation.

Asked by The Associated Press about Patino's characterization of Britain's warning, a Foreign Office official said via email that the letter "was not a threat" and was intended to clarify "all aspects of British law that Ecuador should be aware of." The official would not be identified by name, citing policy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/assange-embassy-ecuador-britain_n_1786104.html

Ecuador twisted into to a threat to storm the embassy.

BTW - diplomatic asylum is not recognized by international law. You are confusing it with political asylum.

[Peace Patriot]

17. You're saying it wasn't a threat? Aw, come on. You gotta be kidding.

The U.K.'s back-pedaling doesn't make it not a threat. All of Latin America was up in arms about it! It was as plain a threat as it could be.

And now the U.K. is acting just like the communist dictatorship of Hungary did, when they denied Cardinal Mindszenty passage out of Hungary, after the U.S. embassy granted Mindszenty asylum. They kept him holed up in the U.S. embassy for 15 years!

You think that's a good model of behavior for the U.K.?

It does tell us something, though, about the dictatorial mind-set of those who desperately want Assange in custody and the poodle mindset of those who tried to contrive it.

Bloody disgusting, is what it is. The set-up: not questioning him (repeatedly), not charging him with anything, telling him he could leave the country then pursuing him with a warrant "for questioning"; the U.K. court buying this crapola, then the U.K. threatening to storm the Ecuadoran embassy when Ecuador, very appropriately, granted him asylum and now the U.K. essentially holding him prisoner in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, just like Cardinal Mindszenty!

You gotta wonder what the political powers-that-be in Sweden and the U.K. got in exchange for running rampant over Assange's rights and dumping this bomb into the diplomatic community, that they might just storm and grab this man that they so desperately wanted in custody, who was not charged with any crime. Did they get their payoff? Was it withheld because they didn't succeed? What was the pay-off?

[hack89]

18. It was not a threat to storm the embassy - stop moving the goal posts

And your Assange timeline is wrong.

His lawyer was notified on 22 Sept 2010 by the prosecutor that Assange was to interviewed on the 28th. Assange left Sweden on the 27th. This is what his lawyer said under oath in a British court of law.

Secondly, the Swedish system is different - the accused is arrested and charged late in the process after the investigation is finished. The last step before charges and arrest is an interview where the prosecutor lays out his case to the accused. This interview was not to hear what Assange had to say. It was the last formal step before his arrest - which is why he ran.

As for asylum - diplomatic asylum is not recognized in international law. What is so hard to grasp about that? Notice the lack of international support for Ecuador? It is because diplomatic asylum was rejected by the countries of the world a long time ago for some still valid reasons.

[AntiFascist]

19. About this "lack of international support"...

you may want to read the actual reports on this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/oas-urges-britain-ecuador-resolve-assange-row-210333857.html

Ecuador had accused Britain of threatening to raid its embassy in violation of diplomatic conventions to extract Assange and had sought support from the OAS in objecting to such a possibility.

However, due to objections from the United States, Canada and others, including Panama and Trinidad and Tobago, all of whom said the OAS was not the proper venue to discuss a bilateral dispute, references to the alleged threat were removed from a draft resolution offered by Ecuador and strongly backed by leftist allies Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Just because the US, Canada, Panama and Tridad and Tobago wanted to water down the OAS resolution, doesn't mean that much of the rest of Latin America wasn't outraged, and the OAS went ahead with a resolution anyway. Ecuador had considerable support in the Western Hemisphere.

[hack89]

20. Latin America is outraged - the rest of the world not so much.

do you think that the fact that Latin America is the only part of the world that recognizes diplomatic asylum has anything to do with it?

[AntiFascist]

21. The US itself does practice much of the same type of asylum...

when it involves asylum in the US. The only distinction is that we choose not to enforce it as a matter of international law.

The reason leftist Latin America is outraged is because it has been the victim of so much right-wing oppression and violence in the past. You can try to demean Latin America all you want, that doesn't make it less relevant.

[hack89]

22. You just posted the difference between political and diplomatic asylum

one is has been recognized by international law for centuries. The other was explicitly rejected by most of the world - there is ICC case law that explains why the UK and the rest of the world does not have to recognize Ecuador's actions in London.

[AntiFascist]

23. Sorry I misspoke...

there are also cases where the US has granted diplomatic asylum:

"the U.S. has a long record of protecting political targets inside U.S. embassy complexes, most recently with Chinese blind dissident Chen Guangcheng last December.

That might seem like a distinction without a difference to many. However, Chen never sought or was granted asylum; he simply asked to study in the United States and the Chinese government eventually assented.

In 1989, the U.S. granted "temporary refuge" to Feng Lizhi, a leader of the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement, who fled to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and stayed there for 384 days before Chinese authorities allowed him to go to the United States, but officially only for "medical treatment."

Joseph Stalin's daughter Svetlana sought refuge in 1967 via the U.S. Embassy in India and was eventually granted U.S. citizenship."

[hack89]

25. Those are all people escaping political persecution by despotic regimes.

not accused rapists evading prosecution by a country considered to have one of the fairest judicial system in the world.

From the 2011 Rule of Law Index by the World Justice Project:

Sweden ranks first in three of eight areas -fundamental rights, open government, and effective regulatory enforcement and is located in the top five in seven of the eight categories. Sweden’s administrative agencies and courts are rated among the most effective and transparent in the world, and generally observe fundamental rights.

http://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/wjproli2011_0.pdf

[AntiFascist]

27. Again, the point is...

providing diplomatic asylum is not unheard of outside of Latin America.

In this case, Assange is seeking shelter from a nation (the US not Sweden) where elected officials have called for his prosecution, and some made statements that he should receive the death penalty, and where certain Republicans have even stated in the media that he should be assassinated for his crimes. If Assange could be guaranteed that he not be extradited to the US then he, his lawyers, and Ecuadorian officials are all on record as saying that he would have no problem facing justice in Sweden. This is, on the record, not about Assange's treatment by Sweden's judicial system, except insofar as where they may be cooperating with the US. You can argue all you want about what really is motivating Assange and what may be going on in his head. I can only provide you with statements that have been made publically and officially.

[hack89]

29. No - Assange is accused of rape in Sweden

The US is his excuse to avoid facing justice.

[AntiFascist]

30. Then you are essentially calling the diplomats liars...

and claiming that they are supporting Assange's charade.

I could just as easily claim that Karl Rove has struck a deal with his Swedish contacts to have Assange extradited to the US once he is sent to Sweden. There is just as much evidence supporting this statement as there is supporting yours.

[hack89]

31. Because we know governments never lie? That every action they take is with the purest intentions?

I have no clue what motivated Ecuador. I suspect they are regretting their decision.

[AntiFascist]

33. Suspect all you want...

they have made numerous statements that this about keeping Assange safe from mistreatment within the US, not mistreatment within Sweden. I'm sure they were fully aware of the sexual misconduct charges before they granted asylum.

[hack89]

34. So perhaps Correa is using Assange to advance his stature in South America

I think this sums it up well:

U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House's Western Hemisphere subcommittee, has met with Correa several times and believes he understands the gamble.

"He's a very smart guy and this wasn't done in a vacuum," Engel said. "The reason is to kind of be the head of the poke-the-United States-in-the-eye group."

That club includes Bolivia, Nicaragua, Argentina, Venezuela and Cuba — the latter formerly the top Latin American destination for people fleeing U.S. and European prosecution.

"It's not just done because Julian Assange should have freedom or shouldn't be persecuted," Engel said of Correa. "If that were the case, why is he persecuting his own journalists?"

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecuador-leader-seeks-moral-halo-asylum-fight

[AntiFascist]

37. Maybe you should read the entire article...

it's about Correa attempting to attain the moral high ground on this issue. If this were only about Assange escaping prosecution for sexual misconduct charges, it certainly wouldn't be a path to any moral high ground.

[hack89]

38. No - it is about Correa using Assange to further his personal ambitions.

if he was so concerned about transparency perhaps he should stop arresting reporters that criticize him.

[AntiFascist]

39. OK so he seized an opportunity to further his personal ambitions...

it's not surprising that a nation's leader might do that.

The essence of my point is that this is about something greater than sexual misconduct charges. From your article:

Marta Lagos, director of the Chile-based Latinobarometro polling firm, said she found it remarkable how Correa seized an opportunity to become standard-bearer of the sovereignty of little nations fed up with the sometimes imperious U.S. meddling in Latin America, as exposed in 2010 when WikiLeaks unleashed a quarter-million cables sent home by Washington's diplomats.

"It made the world bigger," she said. "There have been very few times when an emerging, underdeveloped country like Ecuador has committed an international political act of this potency."

[hack89]

40. So when Assange becomes a liability

and Correa no longer gains any political advantage it will be interesting to see what happens.

Assange needs to pay close attention to what happens to Aliaksandr Barankov.

[reorg]

43. don't worry

On 23 August, prior to the CNJ's decision, the Ecuadorian Deputy Foreign Minister Marco Albuja stated, "Ecuador will put the emphasis on not extraditing a citizen whose life is at risk, from facing the death penalty or life in prison".[13] Extradition would have required approval by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa,[14] who stated that if the CNJ allowed the extradition, then he could refuse the extradition "as a last resort." He stated, "We reject any attack on human rights (or) political persecution".[13]

On 29 August 2012, the CNJ stated that Barankov's refugee status was justified and rejected the Belarusian extradition request.

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

[hack89]

50. Correa was the one who threw Barankov back in jail

just before the president of Belarus arrived to sign some trade deals. The judges are the heroes here, not Correa.

[reorg]

56. Presidents through people in jail?

Maybe that's how it goes in the movies you like to watch.

Extradition would have required approval by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, who stated that if the CNJ allowed the extradition, then he could refuse the extradition "as a last resort." He stated, "We reject any attack on human rights (or) political persecution".

On 29 August 2012, the CNJ stated that Barankov's refugee status was justified and rejected the Belarusian extradition request.

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

[AntiFascist]

44. Barankov was previously arrested in Ecuador...

for overstaying his Visa. He's also a former police official being accused of fraud charges, not a journalist/hacker facing sexual misconduct charges. There may be some parallels with Assange, but why should he be treated equally when his situation is clearly so different? Maybe Ecuador itself has a lot to fear from the Belarusian KGB. Who can say?

[hack89]

47. Barankov was granted political asylum in 2010 and the visa charge was dropped

he was thrown in jail by Correa this past June just before the president of Belarus visited Ecuador to sign trade deals.

The point is that Correa is a political opportunist who was willing to throw Barankov to the wolves for a better deal.

[AntiFascist]

57. Then there you go...

trade deals probably have as much effect on diplomatic decisions as anything else, and they may well have an effect on Assange's outcome. My singular point is that Correa has scored points on providing Assange with asylum because of Wikileaks, not just because it allows Assange to escape sexual misconduct charges.

[reorg]

48. So you want this guy extradited?

Seems to me it was pointed out with feverish outrage previously that Ecuador is in collusion with another DICTATOR in another BAD country, or something.

[AntiFascist]

52. It doesn't matter what I want...

and this thread is not about Barankov's situation. The point is that Ecuador may be under completely different kinds of pressure with respect to Barankov, and these are all factors that would have to be considered. Belarus is not the US and its more like comparing apples to oranges. I wouldn't expect Ecuador to have an open door policy for anyone who happens to be seeking asylum.

[reorg]

55. Sorry, I didn't see you username

and thought this other person had suddenly changed his mind.

I apologize, my fault (although I wouldn't put it beyond this other person to do what I thought he did, given what I have seen of his debating tactics).

[reorg]

26. How did you become an expert in Swedish judicial procedures?

I've seen you and others here repeatedly claim that, in Sweden "the accused is arrested and charged late in the process after the investigation is finished". Assange was arrested "in absence" within less than three hours after the two women arrived in the police station to report him. Had the investigation resulted in "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" of committing an offense, he would most likely have been held in pretrial detention, given that he did not reside within Sweden. Pre-trial detention can last for many months and even years. OTOH, if there is no reason for arrest during the preliminary investigation, then there is no reason to hold an accused in prison after charges are being brought and during the trial.

The fact that Assange was not arrested again after the preliminary investigation was reinstituted means that the suspicion was not strong enough, they had not found "probable cause" or they would have imposed at least travel restrictions instead of telling him on September 15 he was free to leave the country.

Likewise, you and others have repeatedly claimed that a final interview must take place before charges are being brought. While prosecutors may actually hold to this convention as a golden rule, as I have seen described it, there is no such condition, certainly not for arrest, but also not for filing for a summons with the court (which initiates prosecution) to be found in the Code of Judicial Procedure.

The prosecution is bound by law to consider any evidence which might exonerate an accused and also to at all times advise him of the state of their investigation. So, it seems reasonable to question him on everything they have learned during the investigation and what they suspect. But this is not necessarily the final step before they bring charges. I remember at least one interview was held with a witness long after the planned interview date on 28 September, the forensic results were also not in. But yes, the interview was definitely "to hear what Assange had to say". Even Ms Ny made this explicitly clear when she informed the UK court that she was planning to bring charges unless Assange's statements could change her position, which is why she needed to interview him.

There is no maximum period of pre-trial detention in Sweden. However, if no legal action has been taken within 14 days, a new remand hearing is required. In 2010 there were approximately 1,700 pre-trial detainees in Sweden, who made up 24% of the total prison population.

Pre-trial detention may only be imposed on a person who is reasonably suspected on probable cause of committing an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or more. Furthermore there must be a reasonable risk that the person will:
- flee or otherwise evade legal proceedings or punishment;
- impede the investigation by, for example, destroying evidence; or
- commit further offences.
Any person may also be detained on probable cause, regardless of the nature of the offence, if: their identity is unknown and they refuse to provide it; or, they do not reside within Sweden and there is a reasonable risk that they will avoid legal proceedings or a penalty by fleeing the country.

http://www.fairtrials.net/campaigns/pre_trial_detention

[hack89]

28. From the British High Court ruling

140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:

"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.

"7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.

"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.

"9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.

"10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."

The prosecutor is saying that unless Assange has evidence that completely undermines her case, Assange will be arrested and indicted once the interview is completed. That is why he skipped town the day before his interview - he knew he was going to be arrested.

[reorg]

42. read my post again

Nowhere does the prosecutor say that "Assange will be arrested .... once the interview is completed". She says that he will be "indicted" unless "any matters said by him ... undermine (her) present view that he should be indicted". Exactly what I said.

Your interpretation, that the interview is a "formal" necessity, as the "final" step so they can indict and arrest him immediately thereafter, is nowhere supported in this statement by the prosecutor. She needs to make sure she has all the evidence, including Assange's testimony. That is the legal requirement, not that it's a "final step". And that is also why she could conduct the interview elsewhere.

It would certainly be more convenient for her to have Assange in Sweden, and she has the right to arrest him "in absence" - that is what the UK court found. Given that his asylum protects him now against this arrest, she should consider alternatives, in case she really wants to bring this case to an end.

As to your repeated assertions that Assange "skipped" - I don't have an opinion on that either way and don't think it is significant. But didn't you earlier point out that Assange's lawyer testified under oath as to contacts with the prosecutor over an interview date proposed for 28 September? This same lawyer also testified that he didn't reach Assange to communicate this proposal. Are you saying he is lying under oath?

[hack89]

46. Now read the prosecutors statement again.

Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter.

Sure looks like the prosecutor thinks she has all she needs to indict.


He is not protected from arrest - not unless he intends to spend the rest of his life in the embassy.

[reorg]

53. Yes, let's go back to where you started

keeping in mind certain goal posts you don't want to see moved.

"The last step before charges and arrest is an interview where the prosecutor lays out his case to the accused."

False.
1. Arrest has nothing to do with the interview.
2. Charges can and will be brought if the prosecutor thinks he has a case. There is no "last step".
3. The interview must take place because the prosecutor has the duty to inform the accused of the allegations (every step of the way, BTW, which she didn't do in this case).

"This interview was not to hear what Assange had to say."

False. The interview must take place in order to hear what Assange has to say. The prosecutor has the duty to gather all evidence, including what might exonerate the accused.

"It was the last formal step before his arrest"

We already mentioned it: the interview has nothing to do with a possible detention order.

"which is why he ran."

You can say that until you are blue in the face, but even if Assange did not particularly look forward to that interview, there were certainly more, and much more important reasons for him to go to London at that point. We all know that he had major releases to prepare amidst all kinds of attacks against his organisation. And he had been informed that he could leave the country, meaning the prosecutor did not think they had a strong case. Which they didn't, of course, as we all know from the evidence that is available to everyone, or lack thereof.

[hack89]

58. She says that Assange will be indicted immediately after the interview

it is black and white.

It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.

[reorg]

60. You obviously crave to see it but the prosecutor doesn't say any such thing

I can see some grey there, perhaps because you used the "excerpt" tag? Or maybe because the words "immediately", "after the interview" don't seem to be part of your quote?

Of course, the purpose of an interview with a person accused of a crime is not "merely to assist" in the investigation, the investigation will obviously lead to further criminal proceedings if it is thought the evidence merits a trial. Before that happens, though, the prosecutor must come to this conclusion - which Ms Ny says she cannot do before she has interviewed Assange in order to find out whether he can cast doubt on what she now thinks she can prove. Thereafter, the court has to decide whether or not to proceed with a trial. And none of that is conditioned upon the accused to be held in detention, as you have previously claimed.

You apparently think that these steps are meaningless. Which says a lot about your appreciation of the Swedish judicial system.

[hack89]

61. What the hell do you think this means?

Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter.

She says that unless Assange can completely refute her case, he will be indicted. She is saying she is convinced that she has enough evidence to indict Assange.

Considering Assange's first instinct was to run, I doubt he has anything to exonerate himself.

[reorg]

62. It means

that anything he says might trigger further investigations (explicitly mentioned by her, BTW, as one of the reasons why she wants him to be present in Sweden so they can interview him again), cast doubt on assumptions, perhaps his magneticism works on her, too, and she falls in love. Point being, neither you nor I know what will follow from this interview, its purpose being that he is questioned, not just informed that he is under suspicion.

Of course, he completely refutes anything that is alleged. The question is who you believe. I, for one, would not put my money on either of the complainants. One of them is obviously deceitful, both of them act a little too childish for their age. I don't buy either of those stories. But then, again, I have no axe to grind with Assange or Wikileaks.

[hack89]

63. In any respect it is all irrelevent.

he has a valid arrest warrant in his name and he has been ordered extradited to Sweden by a British court. He has no other legal options unless you really think he is going to spend the rest of his life in that embassy.

[reorg]

65. Like a head of state or a governor

he will also have a personal sentry in front of the house, keeping him safe.

Until the UK offers safe passage. They look stupid already, what with the threats to kick the Ecuadorians out of their Embassy. Maybe someone sees reason there some day.

[hack89]

67. He is perfectly safe. And perfectly impotent

which is why I think he will cave first. The UK will not offer safe passage.

[freshwest]

97. hack89 I wanted to ask you something. When you say:

BTW - diplomatic asylum is not recognized by international law. You are confusing it with political asylum.

I googled to learn the difference. I found one source that seemed to indicate they were essentially the same thing. When asking the difference, the OAS law site in Washington, D.C. came up in most of the searches in a treaty signed in 1954 including Ecuador, Venezuela, Honduras and the Dominican Republic and maybe some others, but not most of the Central and South America nor the USA. If you have a moment to check the treaty, it seems to say that Ecuador is doing what it has a right to do, although there is the mention of it not being used to hide fugitives from 'common crimes.'

http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-46.html

This result was next, and it is often cited in the Assange case and definitely calls it political asylum, but it appears the issue is elsewhere, as not all the same countries are signatory to the treaty that I posted above. And it may have been superceded by now, but it is the most cited. There have been many changes of governments in the countries signed on. but I could not find them.

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange granted asylum in Ecuador

LONDON -- WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been granted political asylum by the Ecuadorian government after taking refuge in its London embassy on June 19...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57494222-38/wikileaks-julian-assange-granted-asylum-in-ecuador/

I further found from a 'political asylum' search this result. It doesn't seem to have a direct connection to Assange's case. Because his own country is not on the record as 'persecuting' him, nor is Sweden going after him for the reasons given below. This seems to be new legal territory and assumes international action by multiple governments. I don't see what law applies here, if that's what it is:

Right of asylum (or political asylum, from the Greek: ἄ????? is an ancient juridical notion, under which a person persecuted for political opinions or religious beliefs in his or her own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, a foreign country, or church sanctuaries (as in medieval times).

This right has its roots in a longstanding Western tradition—although it was already recognized by the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Hebrews—Descartes went to the Netherlands, Voltaire to England, Hobbes to France (followed by many English nobles during the English Civil War, etc.) each state offered protection to foreign persecuted persons.

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

[struggle4progress]

98. Question of Diplomatic Asylum : Report of the [UN] Secretary-General [22 September 1975]

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,LEGHIST,,,3ae68bf10,0.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101637727

[hack89]

102. The OAS is the only world organization with a treaty that recognizes diplomatic ayslum

A right of diplomatic asylum is not established in international law. The International Court of Justice has emphasized that in the absence of treaty or customary rules to the contrary, a decision by a mission to grant asylum involves a derogation from the sovereignty of the receiving state. The Organization of American States agreed a convention in 1954.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_law#Diplomatic_asylum

Notice that no one other than the OAS has come out in support of Ecuador granting asylum as a matter of international law.

A fundamental precept of political asylum is one cannot go back to their own country for fear of persecution. Assange is Australian - there is no threat of persecution in Australia.

[AntiFascist]

105. There is some threat of persecution in Australia...

while Sweden denies that they have been cooperating with the US, FOIA documents have uncovered that Australia has been actively working with the US in its investigation against Assange by having its US embassy diplomats pass intelligence relating to potential espionage charges. This indicates not only a bias by the state against Assange, but one involving diplomatic officials who are often politically motivated.

[hack89]

107. Still does not make it political asylum. nt

[AntiFascist]

109. The OAS has jurisdiction over Ecuador...

the UK is respecting the Ecuadorian embassy's sovereignty, particularly after the OAS resolution which stated:

4. To reject any attempt that might put at risk the inviolability of the premises of diplomatic missions, to reiterate the obligation / of all states not to invoke provisions of their domestic law to justify noncompliance with their international obligations, and, in this context, to express its solidarity and support for the Government of the Republic of Ecuador.

The UK has an obligation to respect the OAS jurisdiction in the case of the Ecuadorian embassy. The OAS expresses its support for the government of Ecuador in this case, therefore, it IS political asylum because the OAS recognizes it as such.

[hack89]

110. Too bad the Ecuadorian embassy is in Britain

which does not have a treaty with Ecuador that legitimizes diplomatic asylum. The only Ecuadorian embassies that can grant diplomatic asylum are those located in OAS states. It is settled law - the ICC ruled on it 60 years ago.

Britain is under no legal obligation to recognize Ecuador granting Assange asylum.

[AntiFascist]

111. Ecuador takes a different position...

"They have to comply with diplomatic and legal obligations under the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and respect the sovereignty of a country that has granted asylum," he told the daily.

The refugee convention defines who is a refugee, the rights of those granted asylum, and the responsibilities of nations which grant asylum. The convention further grants special travel arrangements for individuals who have been given asylum.

I'm not a lawyer, but here is some recent case history relating to political crimes:

http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/case-law-search?search_api_views_fulltext=political+crimes&=Search+EDAL+summaries

Britain may feel that it is under no legal obligation to recognize asylum in this case, but it is respecting it nonetheless. As a citizen of an OAS nation I feel I have the right to recognize it as such.

[hack89]

112. You do realize that the US did not sign that OAS treaty?

America has never recognized diplomatic asylum. It appears to be a purely Latin-American concept.

Britain is not recognizing or accepting asylum in this case. All they are doing is respecting the sovereignty of the embassy - if Assange to to put one toe out of that embassy he would be arrested. If they recognized asylum then they would grant the free passage out of Britain that goes with acceptance.

[AntiFascist]

113. and Ecuador has threatened to take this to the ICJ...

if the UK did not comply and at least respect their sovereignty.

Ecuador has taken the role of arbiter and the UK is wlling to enter into talks and negotiate. The next step may in fact be to negotiate the passage out of Britain to Ecuador's Swedish embassy. I would't be surprised if Britain is eager to let him go, but the sticking point would be with Sweden.

[hack89]

114. The ICJ rejected diplomatic asylum 60 years ago

so I won't hold my breath. Diplomatic asylum is not recognized in international law - this is not complicated. Ecuador cannot force diplomatic asylum on Britain.

Secondly, the UK has respected their sovereignty - that doesn't mean that they have to recognize diplomatic immunity.

[AntiFascist]

115. According to one Latin American writer...

The Statute of the International Court of Justice itself provides in Article 38 that the Court should apply ‘international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law’. Nevertheless that very Court, when it decided on the case of the asylum of Mr. Haya de la Torre submitted to it by Colombia and Peru, did not recognize the American custom which Colombia demonstrated in an irrefutable manner. This deficiency of the Court of The Hague suffices to demonstrate the inability of universal tribunals to apply the principles of regional law. It also demonstrates the need to establish a Pan-American court of justice to apply the norms of American international law, one of the most important of which is the institution of diplomatic asylum.

How international tribunals might apply the principles of American international law may be different 60 years later.

[hack89]

116. I doubt we will ever find out.

The ICJ only has jurisdiction when all parties agree to submit the issue to the court.

The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#Jurisdiction

Ecuador cannot simply go to the ICJ and ask that they rule on the issue.

[AntiFascist]

118. Consent may already be present in the form of a treaty or unilateral declaration...

I'm sure the lawyers are aware of this:

The Court can only hear a dispute when requested to do so by one or more States. It cannot deal with a dispute of its own motion. It is not permitted, under its Statute, to investigate and rule on acts of sovereign States as it chooses.

The States concerned must also have access to the Court and have accepted its jurisdiction, in other words they must consent to the Court"s considering the dispute in question. This is a fundamental principle governing the settlement of international disputes, States being sovereign and free to choose the methods of resolving their disputes.

A State may manifest its consent in three ways:

- A special agreement: two or more States in a dispute on a specific issue may agree to submit it jointly to the Court and conclude an agreement for this purpose;

- A clause in a treaty: over 300 treaties contain clauses (known as compromissory clauses) by which a State party undertakes in advance to accept the jurisdiction of the Court should a dispute arise on the interpretation or application of the treaty with another State party;

- A unilateral declaration: the States parties to the Statute of the Court may opt to make a unilateral declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as binding with respect to any other State also accepting it as binding. This optional clause system, as it is called, has led to the creation of a group of States each having given the Court jurisdiction to settle any dispute that might arise between them in future. In principle, any State in this group is entitled to bring one or more other States in the group before the Court. Declarations may contain reservations limiting their duration or excluding certain categories of dispute. They are deposited by States with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

[hack89]

119. I would bet not.

considering the issue has not been raised. Ecuador is desperately casting around to find a way out of mess they are in. They understand that Assange can cause them serious trouble if he decides he can't quit Wikileaks while in the embassy.

[AntiFascist]

120. The point is moot...

as long as the UK continues to try and resolve matters diplomatically, which they are doing. Also, Ecuador is calling the shots, not Assange. If Assange does anything to cause trouble for Ecuador they can always threaten to kick him out.

[hack89]

121. I can't see the UK letting Assange go to Ecuador

so I am not sure exactly what Ecuador expects the UK to do. Especially since the real issue is the Swedish justice system - which the UK has no influence over.

[AntiFascist]

122. Have you not been keeping up with the news?

Ecuador is considering transferring Assange to their embassy in Sweden. They will be discussing this with the UK at the UN, probably in just a matter of hours.

Sweden has already had to admit that there is nothing preventing them legally from questioning Assange in the UK, and this is still a possibility as well, as far as Ecuador is concerned.

The reason the arrest warrant requires travel to Sweden is so that they can interactively show him some items (broken condoms?) and question him about them. They also want to keep him detained since he is now a flight risk.

He could just as easily be detained within the Ecuadorian embassy. Who can say that they might even agree to allow him to be transported back and forth to court if he should face trial. We both seem to agree that he won't be sentenced to any prison time, but if he is then they can deal with it after the conviction and sentencing.

[hack89]

123. Why would Sweden allow Assange to jerk them around like this?

why would they agree to any process that does not guarantee that they can take Assange into custody in accordance with Swedish law? Assange wants to put himself above the law - no country would ever allow that.

[AntiFascist]

124. Sweden should only be interested in concluding their case...

right now they are stuck because Ecuador has interceded, not because of anything Assange may think about himself. Of course the prosecutor is going to say things to demean Assange as much as possible. The fact is, he is already being given special treatment so deal with it.

As I pointed out in previous post, Swedish law is not at issue as far as "taking Assange into custody". The arrest warrant specifies transfer to Sweden so that he can be interactively questioned and detained when and if the case proceeds. The solution proposed by Ecuador allows him to be questioned in Sweden and assures that he will remain in Sweden until prosecution moves forward. This allows progress to be made in the case, and they can make decisions about prosecution at the appropriate time. At least he will be in Sweden and the UK no longer has to act as an intermediary.

Formal talks with the UK are scheduled for Thursday at the UN. We'll see how the UK responds.

[hack89]

125. But setting precedents like this is not done lightly

there is nothing about this case or about Assange that justifies it. He is merely a fugitive from justice - he should not be accorded special privileges because he broke the law.

The smart thing for Sweden is to show patience and let Ecuador and the UK work it out - Assange is not going anywhere and once he is in custody they can proceed like normal.

[AntiFascist]

126. Actually there is...

Last edited Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Sweden is criticized for their pre-trial detention practice of restricting communication, which would occur in the case of Assange. Members of Australian Parliament have actually listened to a number of complaints related to the treatment of Assange by Sweden. If anything, Sweden needs to be very careful of how they are perceived by the rest of the world. As I noted in this post, a popular Australian investigative television show has found great fault with the Swedish justice system:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101641910

According to a Wikipedia reference:

http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/swe/2009-34-inf-eng.htm#_Toc248053668

The Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe has repeatedly criticized pre-trial detention in Sweden for the high percentage of cases where restrictions on communication are applied.[11] Such communication restrictions means in Sweden no visits, no telephone calls, no newspapers and no TV.

[AntiFascist]

13. Not happening? Seriously?

It evoked outrage from several SA states, and a resolution by the OAS that humiliated the UK. What do you consider "happening", an act of war perhaps?

[hack89]

32. How was the UK "humiliated"?

they were asked to play nice and to resolve the matter using diplomatic means.

No support of Assange, no threats of any kind.

[AntiFascist]

35. According to the BBC...

using their domestic law to enter the embassy could have potentially damaged UK's trade relationships:

Prof Victor Bulmer Thomas, former director of the Chatham House think tank, said the UK government could not afford "to get into any scraps" with Latin American countries, with whom it wants to build better trade links.

"Of course no one's going to cancel a contract and give it to a French company just because of this, but it's all these fine margins. When companies are arguing about whether to give a contract to a French, British or German company, it's those sort of issues that will come up in the next few months," he said.

[hack89]

36. Until the issue is resolved and the winners and losers are determined

I think it is too early to talk of humiliation. So far this fracas does not seem to have cost the UK anything - the speed by which Assange has disappeared from the front pages should tell you something.

[AntiFascist]

41. The latest news of the direct US investigation of Assange's role in the cable leaks...

can only seem to be found in Australian news sources. Why is that? The Bradley Manning case is shrouded in so much secrecy that media has actually filed complaints, claiming the court is acting unconstitutionally. There must be a lot to hide, and if it all got exposed then there would be more than just the UK being humiliated.

[hack89]

45. Or Assange supporters are making mountains out of molehills

we will see, won't we?

[AntiFascist]

49. I'm not an "Assange supporter" per se...

he may very well be guilty of both sexual misconduct in Sweden and helping to break into US government secret databases.

I am much more interested in pursuing those secrets that expose government and corporate corruption, and I strongly detest any attempts to sweep them back under the rug, and the attempts to demonize Assange for the purpose of marginalizing Wikileaks.

[hack89]

51. The Swedish judicial system is one of the most fair and open systems in the world

why not have some faith in it?

[AntiFascist]

54. Please see my post here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101641910

respected Australian investigative journalists may have a different take on it.

Four Corners <Australia's longest running investigative journalism television program> got the Swedish story about right. Swedish policing and investigative procedures are a shambles - and, leaving aside the risks of being extradited to the US, Julian is right to doubt the readiness or willingness of the Swedish authorities to give him a fair treatment.

[hack89]

59. Assange does not have too many options

unless you really think he is going to spend the rest of his life in the embassy he has to go to Sweden sooner or later.

[AntiFascist]

66. Again, he seems to have no problem going to Sweden under the right circumstances...

if the Obama DOJ drops their investigation then things may change.

[hack89]

68. You really believe that?

he is scared of a Swedish prison cell - nothing more and nothing less.

[AntiFascist]

69. He should only be scared of a Swedish prison cell...

Last edited Thu Sep 20, 2012, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)

if the underlying purpose is to keep him detained until the US decides whether to prosecute their case against him. If the US drops their case, then he will face the sexual misconduct charges in Sweden and nothing more. As much as he has been demonized for his behavior, the sexual misconduct case does not appear to be that strong.

[hack89]

70. There is no US case to drop

and secondly, do you think Assange will believe what the US says? Either America is an evil empire or it is honest and can be trusted. What do you think?

It is a ploy - he will never voluntarily go to Sweden.

[AntiFascist]

71. Sorry but you're wrong....

in fact the Obama administration stated that the situation with the Ecuadorian embassy makes it even harder for the US to drop their investigation against Assange. Why do you keep repeating lies? The US is currently not seeking extradition of Assange, but the case against him is still very much alive.

Superpowers behave in an evil manner when they can operate in secret and in the shadows. If the US officially announces that the investigation is dropped then it would be difficult for them to go back on that.

[hack89]

72. But the US is happy where Assange is

no matter how this plays out - lifetime in embassy or Swedish prison cell, the US wins. Assange is neutralized and America's hands stay clean.

[AntiFascist]

73. How could Assange get a life sentence in a Swedish prison cell?

please explain.

[hack89]

74. Lifetime only applied to the embassy.

sorry for the confusion. I don't know what his sentence would be if found guilty of rape in Sweden - judging by his actions I would imagine it could be for a long time.

[AntiFascist]

75. He could be detained for up to about one year in Swedish prison...

since he is a flight risk. They would have to decide to prosecute the case, then whether he would be convicted, then sentencing. Swedish legal scholars claim that it is unlikely that he would be convicted and if so, he would probably receive a suspended sentence.

So, one year in Swedish prison versus (what Assange claims) could be one year in the embassy waiting for the US to decide its case. Conditions in the embassy are probably preferable, and he can still be involved with Wikileaks.

http://justice4assange.com/Fair-Trial-for-Julian-Assange.html

"It is highly uncertain whether Mr. Assange will be prosecuted at all, if extradited. If prosecuted, I consider it highly unlikely that he will be convicted. If convicted, he would be likely, in light of the nature and detail of the allegations themselves (the lack of any threats or physical violence, the consensual sexual relations between the complainants and Mr. Assange before the incidents and, in the case of <AA> (her evidence on this point is contradictory) after the incidents, and his personal circumstances, to receive a suspended sentence."

[hack89]

76. The US has nothing to decide.

it is to their advantage to make no decision at all. This is a British and Swedish issue.

[AntiFascist]

77. You keep ignoring the FACT...

that there is an ongoing US investigation of Assange and Wikileaks. Assange, his lawyers, and the Ecuadorian officials are all on record as stating that the real issue is whether the US will choose to request his extradition while he is being detained in Sweden. You can argue until you are blue in the face what might be going on in his head. I am presenting the facts as they are being reported.

Assange can wait it out at least until after the election, then Obama can decide whether to prosecute and it won't hurt his chances of getting elected (assuming he is still president). The Administration claims that the more time goes by, the less likely it will be for him to be prosecuted, so it is in his best interests to wait it out as long as possible. These are all reported facts. You can speculate about them all you want.

[hack89]

78. And I am saying the US does not have to say a word

they can remain perfectly silent. They may decide that Assange choosing self imposed imprisonment in the embassy serves their interests better then a messy and risky extradition and trial.

What is Assange going to do a year from now when President Obama is still ignoring him?

[AntiFascist]

79. FOIA documentation disclosed...

that Australian diplomats were passing intelligence to US investigators to determine to what extent Assange may have been "conspiring" with Bradley Manning. As the Bradley Manning case proceeds to trial in 2013, I would assume that more documentation could be released to reveal whether Assange is still being investigated as a potential unindicted co-conspirator. You would have to ask an expert about this.

Ultimately the decision will be up to Ecuador, and whether they continue to believe that Assange is at risk of extradition to the US. Officially, I don't think the executive branch can use such investigations for political purposes, so the DOJ should either have to get on with it or quit wasting taxpayer dollars.

[hack89]

80. So Assange will have to sit tight for a year or so

is that so bad?

[AntiFascist]

81. He says he is prepared to do just that...

I anticipate that all this stuff will become news again once the Manning trial gets underway, or as people continue to protest Manning's treatment. Actually, it's the Swedish sex case that may begin to fade into the background.

[hack89]

82. The Manning case will be open and shut

I doubt Assange's role will be much of a factor. Manning's treatment is old news - he was moved to a different prison and integrated with the general population 18 months ago where he has been treated no differently than anyone else. Hard to imagine it will all of a sudden become a big deal.

Secondly, why do you think that most Americans support Manning and therefore Assange? You need to step out of your bubble for a second.

As for the criminal charges against him - arrest warrants and extradition rulings don't just fade away. Espeially after you have just defied two different justice systems.

[AntiFascist]

83. "Most Americans" only know what the media chooses to tell them...

all I meant was that the Manning case would become a more popular news item when the trial gets underway. "Most Americans" also aren't aware of the scope of what has been revealed by Wikileaks. As far as Manning versus Assange, more Americans probably feel that Manning is more guilty of treason than Assange because Manning was a member of the American military, whereas Assange is an Australian journalist.

The criminal charges against Assange are a separate matter, but the public opinion would change once people begin to realize that the trumped up sex charges are intended mainly to marginalize wikileaks and to demonize Assange.

[hack89]

84. Assange will never be a big deal to the American public

it is seen as a British / Swedish / Ecuadorian issue. As long as Obama ignores Assange (which he will) the America public will too. For one thing, I doubt many of them associate him with the Manning case - I don't see Assange playing a huge role in the trial.

[AntiFascist]

85. My other point is...

for those Americans, Australians and others who are interested in following the status of the US' Assange investigation, further FOIA documents may shed light as the Manning trial progresses.

[hack89]

86. Perhaps - but it doesn't help Assange

there is nothing that is going to rally public support behind Assange in such a way to influence the current situation. He is stuck in that embassy for the foreseeable future.

[AntiFascist]

87. You may be wrong again...

Ecuador is now considering asking to transfer Assange to their embassy in Sweden so that he can face questioning there. (Who knew, Ecuador has an embassy in Sweden?)

Also, Assange has rallied support in Ecuador.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/world/Ecuador+Transferring+Assange+embassy+Sweden+respond+charges+option/7281775/story.html

[hack89]

88. What's the point if he doesn't first agree to surrender to Swedish police

if they decide to indict and arrest him? Don't forget that this interview is not merely to get his statement - it is a final procedural step before indictment.

[reorg]

89. The point is he would be conveniently available for repeated questioning

in the Ecuadorian Embassy in Stockholm. The stated purpose for the the prosecutor to arrest Assange "in absentia" was that his presence in Sweden was needed for questioning and likely repeatedly so.

Don't forget that I already pointed out to you that your false claims about "a final procedural step" are but figments of your imagination.

Assange does not need to be arrested if and when the prosecutor finally decides to file charges and not even if a court decides to open a trial.

[hack89]

90. But what happens when the prosecutor says "you are under arrest"?

if Assange is not willing to recognize the Swedish legal system's power to indict and arrest him then what's the point?

All Assange has to say is "I will willingly surrender if you decide to indict and arrest me." Why doesn't he do that?

He ran once from Sweden, fought an arrest warrant for two years, and defied a extradition order. Of course he will be arrested if indicted - he is clearly a flight risk.

[reorg]

91. the prosecutor already said that in November 2010

Assange does not surrender due to his fear of being extradited to the US. I guess that's news to you?

Assange was under no obligation to stay in Sweden when he left. There was no arrest order issued, he was under no travel restrictions. He was not only informed of this, it is and remains an undisputed straight and simple fact.

He was only arrested "in his absence" when he informed the prosecutor two months later, after a lot of things had happened, like, public calls for his extralegal execution or prosecution in the US for conspiracy to espionage etc., that he was not willing to go to Sweden again. Some things strangely coincided then, the "arrest in absentia" was issued on the same day or one day before the embassy cables were released, funny coincidence of news items connected with his name ...

If the Swedes would really be interested to get these condom allegations resolved, they would agree to the arrangement with Ecuador. Assange would not be a flight risk, he would be confined to the Embassy, of course. As soon as he would leave it, he'd be subject to arrest, on a flip of the prosecutor's finger.

BTW, what you probably still haven't realized after all this time, the current "arrest in absentia" or any other arrest order by the prosecution does indeed fade away, within three days. Only if an independent judge determines probable cause and flight risk, Assange will be detained for a longer period of time in Sweden. Something that hasn't happened yet in this case. We don't know if it is going to happen if Assange were to surrender. He hasn't even been interviewed yet on the main condom allegation.

[hack89]

93. So why should the Swedes waste their time?

he is a fugitive from justice - that's what happens when you ignore an arrest warrant and defy an extradition order. He has no respect for the British and Swedish justice systems so why should they give an iota of respect to his desires?

Nothing will come of this request - the Swedes are not going to let Ecuador meddle with their legal system. Until Assange recognizes the right of the Swedes to indict and arrest him they will not waste their time.

[reorg]

96. To finally resolve the matter?

Assange has shown a great deal of respect for the British and Swedish justice systems, complying with the legal process and restrictions imposed upon him for almost two years. Until he finally must have lost trust. Do these systems operate fairly and not as obedient tools of the politically reactionary executives in those countries? I think the breaking point for Assange was the denial of reasonable time for preparation for an appeal with the European Court. Ms Ny had requested that he would not be granted any time at all, the Brits allowed him 14 days. Assange had no money left for his defense, his lawyer was already working pro bono at the time. So, he decided to seek refuge with Ecuador, a country where presidents don't have the power throw people in jail, unlike at least one certain other country I know of ... and they acknowledged that Assange is being persecuted.

Why should anybody acknowledge Assange's fears of persecution by the US? How about that:

The “off-shoring to Gitmo” Congressional discussion – specifically about Assange

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2010-11-30/pdf/CREC-2010-11-30-pt1-PgH7743-8.pdf#page=1

Rep Peter King (Chair of the Homeland Security Committee in Congress) letters to Attorney-General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (scroll down):

http://observer.com/2010/11/peter-king-on-why-wikileaks-should-be-declar…

Letter by US Dept of Justice General Counsel Harold Koh to Wikileaks – lays the groundwork for formal indictment:

http://www.cfr.org/media-and-foreign-policy/legal-case-against-wikileaks/p23618

Confirmation that the Grand Jury’s still active (2 July 2012) by Dean Boyd, DoJ spokesman:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/fresh-call-on-assange-espionage-20120701-21b59.html

Dianne Feinstein’s (Chair of Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee) 2 July 2012 call for Assange to be prosecuted for espionage:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-senator-calls-to-prosecute-assange-20120701-21b3n.html

The 4 or 5 subpoenas to the Grand Jury already issued to Wikileaks-related people (remember the statute numbers mentioned in the subpoena here – I’ll come back to those):

http://www.salon.com/2011/06/09/wikileaks_27/singleton/

...

But… here’s the kicker. It’s a Congressional Research Service survey of available legislation with which to prosecute WikiLeaks:

http://t.co/knzcVbPW

(With thanks to the poster who collected these links and posted them at:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-3/#comments)

[AntiFascist]

99. Interesting that UK Foreign Minister Carr is telling blatant lies...

or else he is just uninformed:

"Mr Assange should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act <of 1917>," the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Californian Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, said in a written statement provided to The Age.

...

Foreign Minister Bob Carr, who has declined to describe Mr Assange as a journalist, claimed last week that there was "not the remotest evidence" of any US government desire to prosecute the WikiLeaks founder.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/fresh-call-on-assange-espionage-20120701-21b59.html#ixzz27BeFiqcs

[hack89]

101. He doesn't get to dictate to Sweden what they can and cannot do

he is a fugitive from justice - nothing more and nothing less. He is in no way deserving special treatment - he is just man.

[AntiFascist]

104. Wrong yet again...

Assange has been granted diplomatic asylum (very special treatment) and the UK is respecting that for the time being. As a result, Sweden has no choice but to respect it as well, ergo Assange is receiving special treatment whether you like it or not. Assange is not dictating to Sweden what they can or cannot do, but no one is arguing that. We'll see what plays out on Monday.

[hack89]

106. You have an interesting perspective

Assange is trapped like a rat with no legal leg to stand on. Ecuador is desperately trying to find a way out the mess they find themselves in. The UK and Sweden are not budging an inch because international law is on their side.

And yet you seem to think Assange is something more than a common fugitive from justice who can demand special treatment from the justice system.

He is refusing to recognize a Swedish arrest warrant and a British extradition ruling. He thinks he is above it all. He is in for a rude awakening.

[AntiFascist]

108. I'm merely pointing out...

Assange has already received special treatment...not every "fugitive" would be provided diplomatic asylum.

Trapped like a rat? He hardly has much to fear from Sweden itself, except for indefinite detention. Assange is merely bringing to light the fact that the US has an outstanding investigation against him and they could very well be planning to prosecute at just the right time. There may be a small probability that he could get extradited to the US and then mistreated, but you can't fault him for wanting to insure that won't happen, especially when so many in the US have called for his death and he has received death threats.

It's more likely that Assange will ultimately get questioned by the Swedes and then even if the case makes it all the way through prosecution, indictment, conviction and then even sentencing for sex charges, the sentence would end up being very light or suspended, based on the lack of evidence.

[hack89]

117. I agree with you on the probable outcome of a Swedish trial

even though "convicted rapist" is not the best thing to have on your resume. But we will never know until Assange is tried. Which he is doing everything in his power to avoid.

[AntiFascist]

92. I'm not aware that he would have to make such an agreement...

apparently Assange's defense feels that key evidence could be presented during questioning that could prevent indictment. This was reported a while ago:

"Garzon had told the Australian newspaper Sydney Morning Herald that he has key information relating to the rape claims his client was facing and that it would be a “very good option” for the Swedes to travel to London to take a statement."

[hack89]

94. And when the prosecutors disagrees? What then?

every defense lawyer says his client is innocent. There are millions of "innocent" people in jail.

Assange needs to show that he respects the Swedish justice system. If they can't indict and arrest him then why waste their time?

[AntiFascist]

100. The prosecutor should only want to prosecute a valid case...

I highly doubt that the defense lawyer would promise to deliver something relevant during questioning, only to later come up short and piss off the Swedish government even more.

[hack89]

103. That's funny - thanks for the laugh.

Last edited Sat Sep 22, 2012, 11:24 AM - Edit history (1)

every week I see lawyers on TV swearing up and down that their clients are innocent and they will prove it in court - usually followed in a month or two with a guilty verdict. Look at George Zimmerman's lawyer as exhibit A.

[struggle4progress]

12. Has she forgotten how the Climategate emails, released by Wikileaks, scuttled the Copenhagen summit?

[KoKo]

16. She is Showing her Stuff and protesting in the best way she knows how...FASHION! n/t

[-..__...]

64. Turn to the left... turn to the right...

Ohhhhh... fashion.

We are the goon squad and we're coming to town...

beep... beep...

"FASHION"?!?

The 'fashion' industry has to be one of the most obscenely pretentious, grossly overrated, I can make you look beautiful, industries to poison peoples minds.

Westwood isn't addressing the problem... she's part of the problem.

Does anyone ever actually wear this shit (other than at a coronation, film awards ceremony or other paparazzi/red carpet event?).