Assange will not leave Ecuador embassy even if Sweden drops extradition bid

[struggle4progress]

Source: The Guardian


Assange will not leave Ecuador embassy even if Sweden drops extradition bid
WikiLeaks founder fears moves are under way by the US to prosecute him on espionage charges over cable releases
Esther Addley
Tuesday 18 June 2013 16.16 EDT

... "The strong view of my US lawyer is that there is already a sealed indictment, which means I would be arrested, unless the British government gave information or guarantees that would grant me safe passage," the WikiLeaks founder told a small group of news agencies.

"We know there is an ongoing investigation in the US and we know I am a target of the federal grand jury. There is a 99.97% chance that I will be indicted. So if the Swedish government drops their request <to go to Sweden> tomorrow, I still cannot leave the embassy. My lawyers have advised me I should not leave the embassy because of the risk of arrest and extradition to the US" ...

Asked if he regretted seeking asylum because of the resulting stalemate, Assange said: "Strategically, it has been exactly what I hoped for" ...

"My case could be swiftly resolved if Sweden were to guarantee that I would not be extradited to the US or if the British government would guarantee to veto any such extradition to the US," he said ...



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/18/julian-assange-will-not-leave-embassy

[hack89]

1. "exactly what I hoped for" - got it. nt

[Hydra]

2. He may be there forever

The powers whose cage he rattled will probably still be there 20 years for now.

[struggle4progress]

8. Neh. He takes up too much space at the embassy.

... At a meeting .. between Ms Alban and Hugo Swire ..Ms Alban is said to have asked: "What are we going to do about the stone in the shoe?" Mr Swire's response .. was: "Not my stone, not my shoe" ...
Someone's leaving Ecuador's embassy... but it's not Julian Assange
Ana Alban .. recalled to Quito over her failure to bring an end to the WikiLeaks founder's asylum saga
Kevin Rawlinson
Sunday 09 June 2013

[jeff47]

3. Indicted for what?

Assange's story is that he just received the documents from Manning, and then published them.

That's actually legal.

Manning is required to keep the documents secret. Assange has no such requirement because he does not have a security clearance. That's why the New York Times and Washington Post reporters covering the Pentagon Papers aren't in prison.

Now, if Assange tried to induce Manning to leak information, that is illegal. But that isn't the story Assange nor Manning's attorneys have told.

[Recursion]

6. Strictly, they weren't even "classified" anymore once Assange got them

since "classified" describes a condition of retention and storage.

[jeff47]

10. It's an overloaded term.

The documents are still classified, even though they were no longer stored properly. Classification covers the storage as well as the content.

[Recursion]

13. It depends

Classification covers the storage as well as the content.

Not always, and less and less as time goes on. We literally do have thousands of notebooks of Iraqi interviews lying around that are unclassified, but contain information that makes up a classified document once it's typed up. It's stupid.

[jeff47]

18. I'm guessing it's a compilation issue.

Each of those individual notebooks are unclassified. The sum total of the notebooks, and the fact that the US is analyzing them, can bump the result up to classified.

Think of it this way: Castro's favorite brand of ice cream isn't classified. The fact that the US knows what Castro's favorite brand of ice cream is classified - the fact that the US knows it reveals more information.

[Recursion]

24. Nope. Exact same info.

I know because I was writing the stuff and then typing it up. It's not classified in my handwritten notebook (meaning I don't have to burn that, though I did), but it is classified once I put it on the platoon laptop.

[cpwm17]

7. A much bigger reason that Assange shouldn't be in any legal trouble for the released documents is

Assange isn't an American and he isn't obliged to follow American law.

[cstanleytech]

20. Agreed though the US could try to extradite him it depends what

country they try to do it from assuming of course they even want to and that this isnt a case of Assage deluding himself over his own worth.
But anyway back to the extradition, it all depends on what country he is in when or if they try, if it was Sweden he actually might be safer there http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/04/assange_extradition_unlikely/


"Lindskog also says “extradition may not be granted for military or political offences” and explains that Swedish law won’t permit extradition if the subject of such a request is likely to experience persecution or “is serious in any other respects” or "is contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles”.

“We have some specifics when it comes to extradition to the United States,” Lindskog added, including prohibitions on extradition for political or military acts."

[George II]

30. Apparently he doesn't think he's obliged to follow Swedish law either!

[laserhaas]

32. BINGO - you hit the nail on the proverbial head. Since WHEN can we just seek to snatch

people up from other countries = because they are in violation of American law?

Karl Rove has been behind this from the beginning;
and (IMO) he's the asswipe who should be on trial!

I;m just sayin......

[cpwm17]

36. Yep, I'm sure I break the laws of countries around the world every day

Any country that would try to kidnap me for breaking their laws would be committing a crime against me.

[JDPriestly]

51. If we could do that to foreign nationals, then foreign

countries would have the right to do that with our nationals.

Also, there is a problem of jurisdiction in the law. The court would have jurisdiction over the documents and maybe over the information that was published, but how can we claim that a foreign national was required to obey our law with regard to our information once that information was outside the borders of our country?

Does anyone know?

Let's say that an American reporter working for the New York Times published an article about something that the Russian government considers secret. Would a British court extradite that American reporter?

Does anyone think so?

[treestar]

62. AFAIK Julian has never been to the US

So it's beyond me how the US could charge him with anything.

[struggle4progress]

19. I don't know the exact state of American law there, but your blanket claim is certainly false

Philip Agee won the unending enmity of many conservatives with his 1968 book on the CIA

Vietnam was fracturing US society back then, and there was quite a lot of suspicion about government, further fueled later by the lawlessness of Nixon's administration

So for some years, we had publications like CAIB or CounterSpy

GHW Bush was CIA director during some of that era, and his continuing denunciations of such publications led, after Reagan's election, to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982:

... Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both ...

This language suggests that even republication of material widely and available to the public can be criminal, when the purpose is to identify covert operatives

The intent and effect, of course, was to shut down magazines like CounterSpy

So it seems likely to me that prosecution of persons without security clearance, even for publication of material widely and available to the public, may sometimes be possible

[jeff47]

21. If your argument was correct, then all the reporters who covered Wikileaks

would be in prison.

The New York Times and Washington Post reporters would qualify just as much as Assange. Heck, those two entities have much more of a pattern of disclosure than Assange.

So how come they aren't in jail?

First amendment still applies.

[struggle4progress]

26. You don't seem to have read with much understanding what I actually wrote. The major media

has plenty of legal counsel, and they're currently unlikely to engage in a pattern of behavior designed to expose covert operatives. But perhaps if you are claiming they have engaged in such a pattern of behavior, it is nevertheless up to you to demonstrate that fact when you wish to make the claim

[JDPriestly]

52. Two problems. We have freedom of the press.

And second, as I asked above, do you think that we would extradite an Australian reporter who published Russian secrets? I really don't.

I don't think that other countries have a duty to extradite people who are not American and are accused of violating American law but not in the US. If a person violates US law in the US, then maybe. But I don't know.

A US court has to have jurisdiction over a case. The only things in the Assange case that I can see the US courts having under their jurisdiction are the documents and films that were published. They belonged to the US. But Assange is not subject to our law. And he did not publish the documents within the US. The New York Times and other newspapers may have published them here.

I don't know the law on this. That is not my field.

Does anyone know? I am intrigued.

[struggle4progress]

55. Perhaps you are reading more into what I wrote than I actually said

I am not a fan of the IIPA, since it seems to say that I could be prosecuted for a diligent effort to expose criminal covert action, even if my research and publication were based entirely on the careful use of material already widely available to the public

My point is simply that, contrary to the claim in #3 ("... he just received the documents.. and .. published them. That's actually legal"), it's not at all clear that republishing various documents one receives is always legal. One could probably give other examples as well: I very much doubt that I would walk scotfree, if someone gave me detailed government documents, on how to build a small nuclear weapon, and I then republished the documents

You assert that "Assange is not subject to our law." Whether he is or not, I myself have never advocated that the US should prosecute him. On the other hand, I find your reasoning defective. You seem to believe that only a person who violates US law within the US can be properly brought before the US courts. I have some inclination in many cases to adopt that view, but I suspect certain questions are not easily answered by any simple ideological analysis. On your theory, someone who organizes (say) a terrorist attack against a target in the US is immune from US prosecution if they never set foot in the US. Since I personally would rather see terrorism suspects in our criminal courts, rather than treated as military targets, I find that in some cases I strongly dislike your theory: it leaves military operations as the only feasible response

[JDPriestly]

57. Do you think that we should extradite to Russia Americans or

British subjects who print Russian secrets in the New York Times.

To make the situation more comparable, do you think that we should extradite Canadian citizens for printing Australian secrets in the New York Times.

For that matter, should we extradite Chinese dissidents for printing Chinese secrets in our newspapers? More accurately, should we extradite Chinese dissidents who are in the US to India for publishing Indian secrets? Or vice versa, Indian citizens in the US for publishing Chinese secrets?

Over whom does a court have jurisdiction? Does Russia have the right to demand the extradition of Polish citizens from the US for printing Russian secrets?

[struggle4progress]

58. I'm afraid you've lost me completely. What exactly are we discussing?

The only extradition case in which I remember taking any stand is the Assange case, in which I have taken the view that, having failed to overturn the Swedish arrest warrant in several passes through the Swedish courts, and having lost his contest of the extradition in several passes through the UK courts, Mr Assange may properly be sent by the UK to Sweden to face prosecution there

In the case of Mr Snowden, I have posted a few articles discussing the prospects for extradition, but I rather doubt I have taken any stand on whether China should, or should not, extradite him to the US, should the US ever request his extradition. In fact, I don't much know for sure what I make of him: though I currently lean towards the view that he has an naive libertarian view of politics and has been overly-influenced by Mr Greenwald, I might also contemplate the possibility that he represents a rather silly attempt by the CIA to plant an agent in China, that he might himself be a Chinese agent, or that he is an infantile attention-seeker who decided to grab headlines during the Obama-Xi meeting and the G8 summit. I suppose it possible that the ruling class in "Red" China (which today seems to me just another example of a "state-capitalist" society) could grant Snowden refuge there, on the alleged grounds that he is fleeing persecution in the US -- but it might be an awkward position for him, in part because I should expect it to be difficult to gain anyone's trust after broadcasting one's willingness to snatch documents and flee, and in part because (if he is actually who he says he is) I doubt the Chinese establishment is eager to have an open government campaigner wandering the streets

[JDPriestly]

59. I am giving you hypotheticals.

The law is supposed to apply uniformly and universally. Through hypotheticals, that is fact patterns, stories that present situations that are similar to or parallel to a fact pattern in an actual case that poses a legal issue or quandry, you can objectively determine whether you are applying a law uniformly and universally and whether the law actually applies. You can find out other things to. Lawyers often use this method in courtrooms.

You describe the same legal situation but you change the facts somewhat. Then you can see whether the conclusions you have reached really apply in all situations and if not when they do apply and what changes in the facts cause them to apply or not to apply. You think about what is different between the situation in the hypothetical and the situation you are considering in the case. That permits you to bring some objectivity to your application of the law.

It's late and I am not explaining this well. Sorry.

If you think that the US should be able to extradite Assange, a foreign national for violating US law by publishing secrets provided to him although he was not in the US when he published them and allegedly violated the American lase, then you would also have to say that assuming that Russia and, let's say Canada, have an extradition treaty, Canada would have to extradite to Russia an American national accused of violating Russian laws protecting Russian secrets by publishing the Russian secrets while in Iceland?

Hypotheticals are used to test your legal rule or assertion or theory without the contextual baggage that might make you want to reach a certain conclusion due to your emotions or in this case personal loyalties.

So that is why I asked about the comparable situation but using other countries as the example. I'm not sure of the answer myself. But I suspect that there is some difficulty in, let's say extraditing a British subject from the US to Russia for violating Russian law regarding Russian secrets. It would depend on the facts, but without further facts, that is what I think. I do not, however, know and would be interested in others' opinions. I have never had to deal with such a situation. And I hope I never do.

People do the darndest things. But laws of one nation may usually apply to the citizens of that nation and to others who happen to be located in the physical jurisdiction of that nation. There are exceptions, but I don't know of any that would apply in Assange's case. Britain and the US are very close allies, however.

Violating an espionage act could be viewed as a political crime which complicates the issue even more.

[struggle4progress]

60. Then, as I previously said upthread in #55

I myself have never advocated that the US should prosecute Assange, and as I explained subsequently upthread in #58 the only stance I can remember ever taking regarding his extradition, or any other, is that having failed to overturn the Swedish arrest warrant in several passes through the Swedish courts, and having lost his contest of the extradition in several passes through the UK courts, Mr Assange may properly be sent by the UK to Sweden to face prosecution there

[SamKnause]

4. Extradition

Stay strong Julian, you have the support of millions around the world !!!!!!

[Recursion]

5. What law does he worry he has broken? I don't see what case he thinks the US has

And from everything I've heard the USG agrees with me. It's not a crime to publish classified documents that someone else gives you. And for that matter, they legally aren't even "classified" anymore at that point.

[Hydra]

11. We're in the land of "Make Laws up"

As I posted in another thread about Bradley Manning, "We declared war on Wikileaks?"

[Recursion]

14. Did we? US says we aren't seeking extradition

It's one thing to be allegedly making up laws, but are you seriously saying he's going to be kidnapped since we aren't seeking him through official channels? If so, I suggest the "Creative Speculation" forum on the left side of your browser window.

[Paulie]

15. The US has the extraordinary rendition policy in our recent past

It would color his thinking.

[Hydra]

16. Ummm, what?

Manning's trial, they are attempting to nail him on "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" and trying to prove it by saying Wikileaks told him what kind of info they wanted.

How does that logic work unless we declared Wikileaks to be a hostile group?

[Recursion]

17. Leaked documents were found in Bin Ladin's compound

If the government wanted to go after wikileaks, they'd be going after wikileaks.

[Hydra]

38. Check what I posted below or from the OP Struggle posted for Manning' trial update

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=66333

They are most certainly attempting to go after Wikileaks and Assange through Manning's trial, in a way that baffles me unless they are attempting to declare Wikileaks some sort of terrorist spy organization.

I'm not an expert, but I'm assuming that if Manning released the info to a press agency and they published it, that's not considered the same as say, overnighting a USB drive to Bin Laden and falls under whistleblowing rather than aiding the enemy.

If they ARE trying to find a way to name press companies as terror groups, I think will see an immediate stop to press leaks and they will all wind up on the net in random batches, like Anonymous' HB Gary Stuff.

I wonder if that would work better?

[Recursion]

39. you are assuming wrong

Giving the material to the NYT is aiding the enemy if Bin Ladin has a subscription.

This is not about Wikilkeaks, and isn't going to be.

[Hydra]

41. So why isn't Scooter Libby in jail for life for a similar crime?

Also, by that logic system, if you were to leak documents that said the Bush Administration was warned that it needed to provide better security at various dams around the country and had not done so, then you would be "giving aid to the enemy" by getting that info out there and hopefully dealt with.

Lovely slippery slope there, in consideration.

[Recursion]

43. Because W commuted his sentence

And he wasn't the leaker, Armitage was

[Hydra]

45. Libby was never charged with aiding the enemy

And he leaked the info to 2 Journalists. For whatever reason, Fitzgerald seems not to have been able to nail Armitage down, but do you think they would have charged him with that if they had?

I'm guessing it never came up, because the Bush Admin spuriously claimed that no damage had been done, but whenever it's politically motivated the other way, we hear about immense damage(proven or not) to our national security infrastructure or to operatives lives.

[JDPriestly]

56. Do you really believe that excuse of a story?

How did Armitage come across the information?

Same way Assange did? Someone leaked it?

[JDPriestly]

54. Remember. The people who appear to be going after Assange

(and we don't know that for a fact although we may strongly suspect it) are under the same leadership as the crew that has this Prism and other similar surveillance operations. They are nuts. They have a huge responsibility. They can't handle it. Maybe no one could. Everyone is going to blame them if things go wrong and if people are killed, so they are grasping at crazy straws.

As long as they go to extremes, spend a huge amount of money to prove they are serious and declare a lot of junky stuff as well as a few real secrets to be classified and not to be published in our "free" press, they feel they have done something and taken responsibility. And when bad things happen, they tell themselves, "We did the best we could."

And all that proves one thing: they are human. And since they are human they are neither perfect nor invincible.

Hey, they are not even immortal. They never will be. They just have a lot of responsibility, and they are panicking because ---

they really can't do anything to make us totally safe. No one can. Life is risky.

We protect ourselves from disease. We hide from storms. We heat our homes in the winter so we don't freeze. We do everything we can to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe, but in the end, we are mortal and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Hey. Doctors used to bleed their patients in order to cure them from illnesses. They used leeches. Sometimes people got well after they had been bled. Sometimes they didn't. But the doctors thought they were doing the right thing. We know they were harming their patients in many if not most cases.

Our government is just about as knowledgeable about how to protect us from terrorists as those doctors were about treating illnesses. Sometimes they get lucky, and then they credit their knowledge of medicine or of national security. But really, they are just feeling their way in the dark.

A bunch of dishonest bunglers. So naturally since Assange ruined their show, since he kind of let us know what know-nothings they really are, just how incompetent and sometimes mean they are (aren't we all at times), he has to be taken down.

It's really a matter of "their" personal pride, of institutional pride. It has nothing whatsoever to do with national security. They just have convinced themselves that it does.

[struggle4progress]

25. The prosecution theory seems to be that a soldier who has been trained

to handle sensitive documents, and who has been explicitly notified that "the enemy" searches the web for useful information, and who then knowingly and deliberately without authorization transfers 750 000 documents to an organization that specializes in publishing previously private information on the web and publicizing its publication of such previously private information, has communicated that information to "the enemy"

The elements of the crime do not require actual receipt of the material by "the enemy" but merely the knowing and deliberate handling of information in such manner that "the enemy" could obtain the material

[Hydra]

37. That would be the logical path to be taking

Last edited Tue Jun 18, 2013, 11:40 PM - Edit history (1)

But at your link in the other article, this is what they are doing with wikileaks instead:

Rath: Well, it seems fair to say that they have not had a great week, the prosecution. They had teased out in their opening arguments a couple of things. One of them was that Bradley Manning had access to Wikileaks most wanted list, it was sort of a laundry list of the things they most wanted. They accused him of basically using that as a shopping list. They have not been able to establish that so far, even that Bradley Manning looked at that list.
They actually also have what is apparently a chat between Bradley Manning and Assange, and again, they have not been able to establish that Assange, if this is Assange, was actually soliciting Bradley Manning for the information, which is something that they set out to prove.

Werman: Right, so why is that important, and does it mean that the prosecution won’t be able to establish Manning’s intent with this leak?

Rath: Right, well part of what’s important about this is actually something that’s going on in the background. There’s a lot of grumbling about there’s a grand jury investigating Julian Assange and Wikileaks. So there’s an idea that they’re trying to establish this connection, this idea that Julian Assange was actually soliciting for the information, to get more information to actually establish them as a co-conspirator if they’re actually going to go after Wikileaks at some point.

They're trying to nail wikileaks as some sort of enemy information terrorist group as part of their strategy. Why would they do that to a bunch of Journalists, unless they are trying to establish that as some sort of official policy against all journalists that accept leaked documents and publish them?

[struggle4progress]

47. What the prosecution thinks it can prove, or might actually succeed in proving, to the judge

regarding Mr Manning's motives or behavior, in Mr Manning's court-martial, could not have probative value in any hypothetical prosecution of Mr Assange: were Mr Assange somehow prosecuted in a US court, he would have the right to confront any witness against him, and to contest any fact alleged by the prosecution, regardless of the outcome of Mr Manning's trial

An issue here with regard to Mr Manning will be whether, having certain sworn duties, he did or did not provably allow an unauthorized person (in this case a foreign national well outside of his chain-of-command) to influence his search for and choice of documents, since that will be regarded as aggravating factor in his case. Mr Assange is not a member of the US military; and although certain articles of the UCMJ might be applied to civilians in a warzone controlled by the US military, neither is this the case with Mr Assange; thus, were Mr Assange somehow charged with some violation of US law, it would necessarily be a civilian statute, not a military regulation. It is, of course, true that anyone interested in charging Assange would pay close attention to what prosecutors were, or were not, able to establish regarding the Manning case, as a partial indication of what might, or might not, be possible to establish regarding the hypothetical Assange case

You continue to misunderstand the nature of the charges against Mr Manning and the language in which they are framed. The "communicating with the enemy" charge requires neither direct communication nor receipt of the communication: it is intended to prevent soldiers (or civilians in a militarily-controlled warzone) from deliberately and knowingly handling sensitive information in a manner that could allow the information to fall into enemy hands. To prevail in this charge against Mr Manning, the prosecution is not obliged to prove anything resembling "Wikileaks is the enemy" -- what is required is to show that Manning deliberately and knowingly handled sensitive information in a manner that could allow that information to fall into enemy hands, and his motives are irrelevant to the elements of the alleged crime. Manning's transfer of 750K documents to Wikileaks is relevant to the charge, since Wikileaks specializes in leaking large quantities of information and publicizing the fact that the material has been leaked

[Hydra]

50. So, pardon me for pulling this, but it's relevant if you meant it and it's accurate:

"what is required is to show that Manning deliberately and knowingly handled sensitive information in a manner that could allow that information to fall into enemy hands"

So they do need to show that Wikileaks/Assange is some sort of less than neutral force in that framework, because if he releases the documents, they promise to vet them and report on them responsibly, then he's off the hook for that charge, regardless of what happened later.

And regardless of how you are viewing the value of the things with Assange, they are definitely pursuing that angle, so they obviously have some sort of plan about that- perhaps if they can prove some indication that he is some sort of spy, then there is a platform for them to drag him back and put him through some sort of secret military court.

Keep in mind too, that we are dealing in the realm of quasi-legal. The fact that Manning was tortured and held without charge for so long should have some bearing on all of this, but I doubt it will.

[struggle4progress]

53. No, the neutrality of Wikileaks is not an issue in that charge, because the elements of the crime

merely require transmission of the information, not receipt of it

You don't seem to understand that Assange really can't be tried in a military court. The general rule for trying people by military in the United States is that the person be an actual combatant, captured in the general course of war, or taken in an area where the standard courts aren't functioning. It is true that the previous administration was lawless in this regard, but they actually got their butts smacked by the courts on that in the Jose Padilla case

To say that Manning was tortured is to distort the meaning of the word unrecognizably. Much of the delay in bringing him to trial was associated with defense motions. Lind agreed to knock 112 days off his sentence on the grounds that his treatment during detention was sometimes unnecessarily punitive, and I find it very easy to believe he was inappropriately harassed by some guards. On the other hand, some of his comments could be construed as suicide threats, and the brig commander perhaps had some cause to disregard at least one of the psychologists who recommended taking Manning off suicide watch, since the same psychologist had not long before made a similar recommendation in the case of another Quantico detainee -- who then promptly committed suicide. In some of his filings in the pretrial period, Manning's defense lawyer himself wrote that much of the close handling of Manning was motivated by a desire to make sure he did not come to harm. I'm very sympathetic to the PoV of UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, who had asked to meet with Manning but then refused after he was told the conversation might be monitored; Mr Mendez was, I think, entirely right to take the stand he could not issue a meaningful report without having a confidential conversation with Mr Manning, but the result was that Mendez could only make general hypothetical remarks about the case, such as "imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence" -- which is a far cry from a factual finding of torture. Much is sometimes made of PJ Crowley's sudden resignation from the State Department, with the comment that the treatment of Manning was "ridiculous and stupid" but he also later said: "I was asked ... why the United States government was 'torturing' ... The fact is the government is doing no such thing"

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

44. It's called "Recursion"

function didIBreakAnyLaw(fullName){

foreach(law in lawbook){

if(law === "SECRET&quot {

didIBreakAnyLaw(fullName);

}else{

askYourLawerStupid(fullName);

}

}

}

Apparently, his lawyers don't agree with you

[Shrike47]

9. Free room and board, cable TV.

[MADem]

12. He's there by the grace and favour of the government of Ecuador.

It's not just his decision.

If Ecuador decided that they no longer wanted to shield him, they'd boot his ass out on the street and he could go shopping over at Harrod's while waiting for the UK police to bust him for jumping bail.

Even if he was convicted of anything in Sweden, he'd be halfway through his sentence by now. The Swedes must find it amusing that Ecuador is paying to jail their "accused" before he is even tried.

[George II]

22. Curious how we haven't heard anything around here about Assange for several months...then.....

...all of a sudden Snowden starts stealing the "martyr" headlines and now we're getting these "Assange" updates daily! Coincidence?

[struggle4progress]

27. He could develop rickets if he doesn't get enough limelight

[George II]

29. Beautiful!!

[Historic NY]

23. Getting a suntan in London sucks...

Assange a so called whistleblower-leaker better prepare for a stay of years in the "cell " of his choosing. I wonder if they will give him conjugal visits.

[RogueBandit]

28. Faulty headline

Here's what Assange said, "... I would be arrested, unless the British government gave information or guarantees that would grant me safe passage."

That is not the same thing as the headline, "Assange will not leave Ecuador embassy even if Sweden drops extradition bid"

The headline implies that Sweden extradition is the only reason he doesn't leave the embassy.

Maybe someone can help me understand if they think that headline is falls short of misleading.

[George II]

31. Here you go..........

.....faulty quote of the article by you. Here is MORE of the sentence:

"So if the Swedish government drops their request <to go to Sweden> tomorrow, I still cannot leave the embassy." which is what the headline says.

That is not merely "... I would be arrested, unless the British government gave information or guarantees that would grant me safe passage."

[struggle4progress]

33. Mr Assange's comments show considerable creativity as they evolve

He had gone to Sweden with the idea of setting up his Wikileaks there, and he applied for permanent residency. Unfortunately, he seems to have so distressed his fuck-buddies that they filed police complaints. While Swedish prosecutors were negotiating with his lawyer for a second interview, Assange fled to the UK, and he began to push through surrogates the idea that Sweden was controlled by CIA agents devoted to sending him off to America for torture or execution. Meanwhile, his challenge to the Swedish arrest warrant wandered through the Swedish courts and lost. At this point, the Swedes requested extradition for prosecution, which Assange's lawyers fought in the UK courts for about a year and a half. When he lost, Assange skipped his next level appeal in the EU and jumped bail to hide in Quito's London embassy

His theory since then has been that he cannot be sent to Sweden, due to his theory that Sweden will forward extradite him to the US where he will be tortured or executed or something

Before today, Assange has advanced various "solutions" to the problems posed by his paranoia, notably: (1) the Swedes could promise to refuse an extradition request from the US; (2) the Swedes could hold their prosecution-interview of him in the Ecuadorian embassy; or (3) the US could promise not to charge him

His statement today, however, indicates he intends to remain in the embassy, even if the Swedes drop their extradition request, unless the UK guarantees him safe passage to Ecuador. This latest "solution" comes the day after Ecuador and the UK held unproductive discussions on his case, after which Ecuador shrugged that Assange could remain in their embassy for years as far as they were concerned

That Assange makes such a statement today suggests it is a response to yesterday's discussions and might even provide us some insight into the possible content of those discussions

Note that the UK stated yesterday that any resolution of the matter must be consistent with their laws, which certainly refers to the decision of the courts last year that Mr Assange must be rendered to Sweden -- but might also be a reference to the fact that Mr Assange is liable to prosecution in the UK for his violatation of the Bail Act. In discussions between Ecuador and the UK, therefore, it would be natural for the UK to address Ecuador's "issue" of possible forward extradition from Sweden by proposing to Ecuador that the UK would seek an agreement with Sweden that, instantly after the Swedish matter was resolved, Sweden would return Mr Assange to the UK for prosecution for jumping bail. That should neuter any argument of a real or imagined threat of forward extradition to the US from Sweden -- and it does not undermine the rulings of the UK courts regarding the extradition of Assange, nor does it ignore Assange's criminal behavior in the UK. Mr Assange, however, would not be enthusiastic about such a proposal, since it guarantees his continual imprisonment from the time of his surrender to UK authorities for extradition to Sweden until the end of the Bail Act violation consequences in the UK, since it is highly doubtful the Swedish or UK authorities will consider his release while any matters are in the courts. That would explain why Assange now wants to claim he cannot leave the Ecuadorian embassy except under a UK promise of safe passage to Ecuador

[RogueBandit]

34. Safe passage to Ecuador

stuggle you say, "except under a UK promise of safe passage to Ecuador"

I didn't see that in the article. Might be there though.

I forgot about his jumping bail. That's a 'sticky wicket' as they might say over there.

In my opinion the whole thing is a mess and it's not just Assange's doing; everyone should be ashamed but are probably very proud of themselves.

[struggle4progress]

35. "... The newly-appointed Ecuadorian minister said that .. a document setting out the basis

on which Mr Assange should be allowed safe conduct to Ecuador had been given to Mr Hague ... "
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange prepared to stay in Ecuador embassy 'for five years'
Foreign minister says South American country will continue to provide asylum to Australian
James Cusick, Patience Akuma
Monday 17 June 2013

[Historic NY]

42. Britain should order his deportation forthwith to his home country Australia...

[struggle4progress]

48. I imagine deportation to Australia will be immediate after his prosecution in the UK

for Bail Act violations

[George II]

46. If it's not Assange's doing...

Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:20 AM - Edit history (1)

...whose is it? Simply put, he jumped bail and cowardly fled the country and is now cowardly hiding out in the Equadorian embassy.

He's a gutless coward who does more thinking with his little head than his big head, and he narcissistically expects everyone to fall over themselves to "forgive" him.

[treestar]

40. I thought the whole problem was Sweden would turn him over to the US

If they dropped the extradition bid, he should be free to go out?

It wasn't like the UK was the extraditer, at least not before.

[struggle4progress]

49. This video may help explain what's going on

[treestar]

61. LOL

Too true!

[Peace Patriot]

63. The law has NOTHING to do with what the U.S./U.K. corporate/war profiteer powers...

...do to those whom they designate as "enemies"--just as the law has NOTHING to do with what the U.S./U.K. corporate/war profiteer powers do to ignore or cover up the crimes of their "friends."

Think of this for instance: President Barack Obama makes the announcement that "we need to look forward not backward" on the Wikileaks revelations. He then frees Bradley Manning and calls off the U.K./Swedish dogs hunting Assange.



Just imagine that. And now think about Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and how these "friends" of U.S./U.K. corporate/war profiteer powers are running around free, and opening their lieberries and pontificating to the American people.

"We need to look forward not backward." --President Barack Obama

The law means NOTHING.

This thread about "the law" is completely irrelevant, and "struggle-for-progress" and other bloggers here are "playing the game" that "the law" is relevant to this situation. It is not. The law is completely irrelevant to the U.S. and U.K. governments, as it is to the corporate/war profiteer powers whom they serve. These are governments that fingerpaint laws to suit the purposes of their masters. Since when is "we need to look forward not backward" a principle of law? Since when does any crime get dismissed because it is IN THE PAST?

Jeez.

These are governments that make up shit out of thin air to justify rank tyranny including horrendous acts of murder, torture, theft on a truly unprecedented scale, and massive violations of human rights and of national and international laws. Do anything serious to become an "enemy" of this corporate/war profiteer global imperium--for instance, exposing their secrets and their crimes--and you WILL be set up, slandered, impoverished, hunted, imprisoned, tortured, prosecuted, suicided, murdered in broad daylight as an "example" or just disappeared.

Julian Assange knows this. And the president of Ecuador certainly knows it, being a Latin American with a brain. These were the methods used for the last half century to destroy the Left and all democracy in Latin America, and are still being used in the U.S. client states of Colombia and Honduras. And, believe me, that is WHY Rafael Correa granted asylum to Julian Assange. The pattern is exactly the same.

"The law" is not just a joke. It is worse than that. "The law" is a WEAPON that our corporate/war profiteer rulers are USING AGAINST US. And this could not be clearer than in the case of Julian Assange.

Consider all these rambling irrelevancies about "the law" by "struggle-for-progress," who has been out to drag Assange through the mud from the beginning, and is obsessed with demeaning him. It is a game. It means NOTHING. Assange offended these corporate/war profiteer powers, by committing the 'crime' of journalism, and he is being punished for it.

[struggle4progress]

64. A Man for All Seasons

~snip ~

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

~ snip ~

- Robert Bolt