WikiLeaks' Assange in Ecuador embassy London: Seeks political asylum

329 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

Fidel wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Fidel wrote:

On the other hand, Assange and his lawyers have invited Swedish authorities to interview Assange there at the Ecuadoran embassy in London. They have refused.

Ok and if after said interview those Swedish authorities decide they want to arrest and charge Assange can they lead him out of the embassy in handcuffs back to Sweden? 

They would have to violate international law to do it. 

Which is probably why they will not bother to go to Britain and interview him in the embassy: if they decided to arrest and charge him they couldn't do it there anyways. It would be a waste of their time unless Equator agreed to let them have him if they decided to charge him after the interview.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Fidel wrote:

Photographed doc lays out Assange police tactics

Quote:
LONDON (AP) — A confidential document photographed byBritain's Press Association news agency lays out Scotland Yard's simple strategy for dealing with Julian Assange should he ever try to leave Ecuador's Embassy in London.

"Assange to be arrested under all circumstances," the hand-written note says.

The briefing paper, captured by an eagle-eyed photographer as an official carried it in his hand, lays out the major difficulty the WikiLeaks founder faces, even though he's received diplomatic asylum. He's safe as long as he remains in the embassy. The minute he steps outside, he faces immediate arrest — and speedy extradition to Sweden — over sex crimes allegations leveled against him there.

The Gladio Gang would never have been so arrogant as to violate international like this during the cold war era.

Do what? Arrest someone once they leave an embassy? What makes him so special once he's back on British soil?

Bacchus

You mean like Imre Nagy?

Fidel

Bacchus wrote:

You mean like Imre Nagy?

The Sovs justified their actions saying that the formerly Nazi-occupied countries would gravitate toward the Atlantic Alliance and threaten Russia militarily.

And nine years after dissolution of the USSR, the Sovs worst fears came true when the Gladio Gang launched blitzkrieg over the former Yugoslavia. And Russia is now surrounded by the fascist alliance and fending off terrorist attacks along the borders.

The Gladio Gang dreams of war as usual in addition to their relentless pursuit of whistleblower Julian Assange. The U.S. Military Government and its European minions of doom have no interest in respecting Nuremberg code or international law in general.

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Which is probably why they will not bother to go to Britain and interview him in the embassy: if they decided to arrest and charge him they couldn't do it there anyways. It would be a waste of their time unless Equator agreed to let them have him if they decided to charge him after the interview.

They refuse to interview Assange because they are not interested in the rape allegations or serving justice in general. 

And if they raid the Ecuadoran embassy and rendition Assange to a military prison or secret CIA torture gulag god knows where in the world, the fascists understand full well that it would be establishing a precedent. At that point the fascist alliance embassies are wide open for raiding anywhere in the world. Do they want to go that far? It's up to them right now, and so far they are threatening to do just that. 

I think the fascist alliance is fearful of whistleblowers. That is the moral of this story. The vicious empire is in decline economically, and they may even feel the need to re-establish a modicum of international respectability. I don't know. Crumbling empires are increasingly dangerous and tend to be unpredictable.

NDPP

'Imperial Ambitions' Won't Change Ecuador's Position on Assange - Correa (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/interview-correa-ecuador-assange-514/

"President Rafael Correa gave RT an exclusive interview explaining his country's position concerning Julian Assange's case.."

 

Latin America, Caribbean Unite to Support Ecuador Over Assange

http://rt.com/news/oas-support-ecuador-assange-529/

"All members approve the full text of the document except for Canada and the United States, which refuses to express 'solidarity' with Quito.."

shameful vassal Canada

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Fidel wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Which is probably why they will not bother to go to Britain and interview him in the embassy: if they decided to arrest and charge him they couldn't do it there anyways. It would be a waste of their time unless Equator agreed to let them have him if they decided to charge him after the interview.

They refuse to interview Assange because they are not interested in the rape allegations or serving justice in general. 

And you base this on what?

quizzical

contrarianna wrote:
On polarized Babble, you would have two different answers based along ideological lines; you have two sides saying (or implying) the other side are faux progressives, or worse.

One side frames the issue as justice for women  versus rape apologists, and the other protection of whistleblowing journalists versus apologists for western totalitarianism.

There may indeed be both kinds of apologists on Babble but the issues need not be framed in such antagoinistic way for anyone who actually cares about justice (or logic), and who recognize that both the framers can have legitimate concerns.

The problem is that the two concerns (justice for women; protection of whistleblowers) SHOULD be entirely separate issues even when involving the same central figure (Assange) and which have their separate just process of resolution.

Unfortunately, they HAVE been linked by the prosecutorial states of the US/UK/Sweden and aided by the complicit media and their readers. They have been linked de facto proceduraly while at the same time, through smoke and mirrors, that link has been downplayed and denied by the states/media.

As the situation now exists there are 2 obvious resolutions:

1)Assange could submit himself for extadition to Sweden for incareration which would, according to all indicators, result in reshipment to a lifelong US hellhole based on an indictment that has nothing to do with the uncharged sex accusations.
No-one concerned with justice for women (or any justice) could endorse this.
It would be both insane and unjust for Assange to agree to this whether or not he was guilty of sex crimes, since this "punishment" would be unrelated to the sex accusations, except as a pretext for capture.

2)The states of the US/UK/Sweden could work out guarantees that he would not be extradited to a third nation. This would demonstrate that the main concern is indeed the course of justice for the women accusers. Don't hold your breath on that one.

Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald outlined the issues involved in his column 2 days ago what would be a logical resoulution to this, which will continued to be refused by the prosecutorial states:

Quote:
The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange

It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for vengeance is preventing that....

i don't know much 'bout this. but  this comment feels right.

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Which is probably why they will not bother to go to Britain and interview him in the embassy: if they decided to arrest and charge him they couldn't do it there anyways. It would be a waste of their time unless Equator agreed to let them have him if they decided to charge him after the interview.

They refuse to interview Assange because they are not interested in the rape allegations or serving justice in general. 

And you base this on what?

Based on the fact that Assange is not charged with anything and is wanted for questioning by Swedish authorities. He's offered to answer their questions with an interview at the embassy. And  Swedish authorities have so far refused to do what they say they intend to do, whereas they questioned a murder suspect in Serbia several months ago. Pay attention.

NDPP

The Next Neo-Con/Globalist Target: The Inviolability of Embassies and Diplomatic Missions    -   by Wayne Madsen

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/08/20/the-next-neo-con-global...

 

"...The forces of globalist neo-conservatism have now decided to attack another institution long protected by interational law; the extraterritorial diplomatic protection afforded to foreign embassies and diplomatic missions. To protect its power, which has never been greater, the UK-USA alliance of intelligence-sharing nations, which includes the 'First Party'; the United States, and the 'Second Parties' of the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand in a core group of 'Five Eyes', English-speaking nations, including Sweden, which share varying degrees of intelligence with the alliance, is flexing its muscles in the Assange case.

Sweden continues to provide the UK-USA alliance with signals intelligence data, which, ironically, is collected from Swedish embassies abroad. In fact, former British MI-5 counterintelligence officer Peter Wright and former Canadian Communications Security Establishment (CSE) agent Mike Frost wrote books detailing the repeated breaching and entering into embassies and other diplomatic missions by Western Intelligence agencies...

In what can only be described as a vendetta for the State Department cable, Stratfor email and other disclosures, the US, working with its intelligence partners Britain, Australia and Canada, are trying to get Assange bagged by the British, sent to Sweden to answer questions about sexual assault charges, and ultimately be transferred to the US to stand trial under the Espionage Act. The UK-USA alliance will stop at nothing to make an example of Manning and Assange.

The US and Canada voted 'no' on a request by Ecuador to hold an emergency Foreign Ministers meeting of the OAS. The 'Five Eyes' are increasingly worried that they will be poked out by a gathering force of nations no longer willing to put up with the Anglo Saxon chicanery."

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Fidel wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Which is probably why they will not bother to go to Britain and interview him in the embassy: if they decided to arrest and charge him they couldn't do it there anyways. It would be a waste of their time unless Equator agreed to let them have him if they decided to charge him after the interview.

They refuse to interview Assange because they are not interested in the rape allegations or serving justice in general. 

And you base this on what?

Based on the fact that Assange is not charged with anything and is wanted for questioning by Swedish authorities. He's offered to answer their questions with an interview at the embassy.

Round and round we go... And if after the interview they decide to charge him what next? They arrest him and take him to Sweden right?

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Round and round we go... And if after the interview they decide to charge him what next? They arrest him and take him to Sweden right?

Not without assurances that U.S. agents of doom won't swoop in and rendition Assange off to some secret gulag for torture, like they did in the example I so generously provided you with up thread. 

It appears now that you might be too broke to pay attention to the topic of discussion at hand. 

Lord Palmerston

Here's my question.  Why is Sweden more of a "stooge" and "lapdog" than the UK?  Why didn't just nab him when he was in the UK?  This "his flight to Stockholm will make a pit stop in the USA" stuff is problematic. 

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Here's my question.  Why is Sweden more of a "stooge" and "lapdog" than the UK?  Why didn't just nab him when he was in the UK?  This "his flight to Stockholm will make a pit stop in the USA" stuff is problematic. 

I don't think anyone said the Swedes are willing stooges. Especially not with the previous Swedish scandal involving Mohammad Al-Zery and Ahmed Agiza. 

Quote:
"America security agents just took over," says Tomas Hammarberg, a former Swedish diplomat who pressed for and got an investigation into how the Egyptians disappeared.

"We know that they were badly treated on the spot, that scissors and knives were used to take off their clothes. And they were shackled. And some tranquilizers were put in the back of them, obviously in order to make them dizzy and fall asleep."

Question: Why would masked American security agents not repeat this exact same rendition scenario at a Swedish airport, and with the only exception being that this time they abduct Julian Assange? I can see it all now. A confusing incident unfolds at the airport in Sweden, and there he was - Gone! As in desaparecidos.

It's not like it hasn't happened before. It has and in very many U.S. client states in this hemisphere and beyond and definitely not since just 9/11/01. We are led to believe by lapdog newz media that U.S. Government-sponsored renditions, torture and executive death squads are new phenomenon since just the 2000's. And that is a lie.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

double post...

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Yeah, Fidel, as if you got room to talk about anybody not paying attention.

So this is all based on the USA snatching him from Sweden before they can do anything they have jurisdiction over him for and taking him to some secret prison where he will disappear? There is no way someone as popular as Assange (a wealthy European White man to boot) could just disappear in front of everyone and the USA get away with it. He’s not some little know terrorist. He would have to be tried in the US civilian court system like any other civilian.

I do not prescribe to the idea he will be treated as an enemy combatant held by the military or a terrorist at war with the USA help by the CIA, but I'm not surprised many here feel that way.

 

Fidel

Neither were any of them terrorists who were renditioned to Gitmo and other secret US Military gulags. It was all a charade to make stupid people believe in an invisible army of darkness. And millions were conned and stayed conned. They have innate desires to believe in whatever in hell their fascist leaders tell them without any proof whatsoever. They believed in Elvis bin Laden and the army of zombie jihadists who hate us cuz we're free and they ain't, but only because they wanted to believe.

NDPP

Assange, Pinochet and Diplomatic Double-Dealing

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/24/assange-pinochet-and-diplomatic-d...

"...the coverage has been generally confused, selective, repetitive and often hostile to Assange and a small Latin American country's decisiion to grant him asylum.."

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Look, I don't care what any of you say or post from the internet. Assange would not end up in Gitmo and other secret US Military gulag. Not that I want to see him there but he'd end up in US federal court.

 

NDPP

Assange and Wikileaks: Time to Ask Some Impertinent Questions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-wasserman/assange-and-wikileaks-que...

"...I think the real Wikileaks story is a very big deal and has been preposteerously underplayed and under-reported by the US media.."

Fidel

[url=Is">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193641/Julian-Assange-rape-clai... this the photo that could clear Assange?[/url] Grinning for the camera, WikiLeaks boss and 'Woman A' who says he sexually assaulted her 48 hours earlier

Quote:

It seems an unremarkable image: a group of friends smiling broadly. But this is the photograph Julian Assange hopes will clear his name.

The face of the woman on the left has been obscured for legal reasons. 

For although she is seen beaming, she would later tell police that 48 hours before the picture was taken, the WikiLeaks founder pinned her down in her flat and sexually assaulted her.

What does this mean for Assange and the allegations made against him? Is it not possible to smile for the camera 48 hours later? 

6079_Smith_W

Nothing that I can see that wasn't public knowledge back when this story first broke ages ago. I believe I read something along these lines in the Guardian back in early 2011.

And the attempts to undermine the complainant haven't changed either. If people want to go after the Swedish prosecutors, fine, but going after an innocent party is not only pointless, it is highly offensive. I don't see that it proves anything at all, except the lengths to which some in the media will go. Using photos and hearsay and to kick around a sexual assault accusation in the open press is really low.

Or are they only part of the MSM assault when they write something we don't like?

Lord Palmerston

Fidel wrote:

[url=Is">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193641/Julian-Assange-rape-clai... this the photo that could clear Assange?[/url] Grinning for the camera, WikiLeaks boss and 'Woman A' who says he sexually assaulted her 48 hours earlier

Quote:

It seems an unremarkable image: a group of friends smiling broadly. But this is the photograph Julian Assange hopes will clear his name.

The face of the woman on the left has been obscured for legal reasons. 

For although she is seen beaming, she would later tell police that 48 hours before the picture was taken, the WikiLeaks founder pinned her down in her flat and sexually assaulted her.

What does this mean for Assange and the allegations made against him? Is it not possible to smile for the camera 48 hours later? 

Total crap.  She was "grinning for the camera" 48 hours later, and Assange is a dissident and enemy of "imperialism", so therefore...she's making it all up?  

Fidel

TheDailyMail wrote:
The two women’s lawyer, Claes Borsgtrom, said yesterday: ‘We will only discuss the dinner at the restaurant and the picture in court.’

“I’ve always been a Daily Mail reader. I prefer it to a newspaper”. ~ Oscar Wilde

onlinediscountanvils

6079_Smith_W wrote:

going after an innocent party is not only pointless, it is highly offensive. I don't see that it proves anything at all, except the lengths to which some in the media will go. Using photos and hearsay and to kick around a sexual assault accusation in the open press is really low.

 

I agree.

Lord Palmerston

So rape allegations take a back seat to the conspiracy theories of the moment.  Shameful.

Lord Palmerston

Well said Smith.

Fidel

Why don't they just go question Assange at the embassy if that's what they say they intended to do all along? The Swedes questioned a Swedish national in Serbia suspected of murder. I don't understand why Assange is any more special than a murder suspect. Do the Swedes, Brits and Yanquis hovering over everyones shoulders  think rape is not that serious a crime? Why are they stalling because justice delayed is justice denied. Someone should light a fire under their derrieres.

NDPP

Julian Assange and the (Ab) Use of 'Rape'  -  by Samantha Stevenson

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14037

"There is a disturbing feminist narrative occurring surrounding Julian Assange. While some feminists are saying that the significance of rape is being overlooked or sacrificed in the cult of support for Assange's political work, a more interesting feminist point could be how an idea of rape is being used deliberately and carelessly by those with the political power to punish Assange (whether or not the allegations against him are true)..."

Slumberjack

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
There is no way someone as popular as Assange (a wealthy European White man to boot) could just disappear in front of everyone and the USA get away with it. He’s not some little know terrorist. He would have to be tried in the US civilian court system like any other civilian. 

I don't believe he's rich, but Manning seems to have a popular following, and he hasn't been seen in public for over 800 days.  And the USA not getting away with things?  Really?  Don't they sign off on an incineration list at the White House every Tuesday?

Slumberjack

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Look, I don't care what any of you say or post from the internet. Assange would not end up in Gitmo and other secret US Military gulag. Not that I want to see him there but he'd end up in US federal court. 

How long would it take to wrap things up in a federal court, and where would they keep him in the meantime?  Where would they put him after sentencing?

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Look, I don't care what any of you say or post from the internet. Assange would not end up in Gitmo and other secret US Military gulag. Not that I want to see him there but he'd end up in US federal court. 

How long would it take to wrap things up in a federal court, and where would they keep him in the meantime?  Where would they put him after sentencing?

The trial would take years. Assange would be held in a civilian jail facility during the trial unless he was put on bail. He would be sent to a civilian federal prison if he were sentenced just like any other civilian. In the US system jail and prison are two different facilities and the environment and populations are very different. Jail holds people who have two year or fewer sentences and people being held for trial. Prison is for people whom have been convicted and are serving time. Some facilities have both jail and prison in them and the populations are kept separate. The media circus surrounding any of this would be substantial to say the least so the notion he’d be whisked away to Gitmo or something is honestly unrealistic. But please don’t let that stop you from thinking otherwise.

Pvt Manning is in the US military prison system. I keep telling you people here that it is different from the civilian system Assange would be in because, despite what some seem to forget, he’s still a soldier and nobody here seems to listen; I don’t know what else to say.

 

Slumberjack

It's clear that you're not in a position of knowledge or authority to offer assurances to anyone on how Assange would fare against the various US judicial systems.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Authority to offer assurances of course not but knowledge of the sytem he'd be in yeah, sure, I've only lived down here my entire life...

I agree he would not fare well if he ended up here in jail or especially prison. He would most likely be kept out of the general population for his own safety but it would still be hard time for him. But at the same time he wouldn't end up in Gitmo or whatever like many here seems to think.

Not that any of this is going to happen by the way...

 

Bacchus

The thing about all this that bothers me is it would make more sense for assange to want to go to sweden, clear his name and then, if his stated fears are accurate, reap a media winfall as extradition to the states plays out and the US would be exposed as the bully he portrays it and we all suspect.

 

Running from that leads me to believe he is thinking of only him self and that the sexual assault accusations have merit

quizzical

running from what he hasn't even been charged? has anyone ever heard of any country asking for extradition of someone in another country when they haven't even been charged with anything?

note i'm not saying he isn't guilty of sexual assault or is. what i'm saying is they haven't even charged him and its been awhile. if they could or really wanted to ya'd think they would've!!!! least then they would have grounds for asking for extradition!!!!

it makes much more sense to me that he is running from rendition to the USA than to say he is running from sexual assault accusations

Unionist

Bacchus wrote:

The thing about all this that bothers me is it would make more sense for assange to want to go to sweden, clear his name and then, if his stated fears are accurate, reap a media winfall as extradition to the states plays out and the US would be exposed as the bully he portrays it and we all suspect.

 

Running from that leads me to believe he is thinking of only him self and that the sexual assault accusations have merit

Remind me to have my lawyer exclude you from any jury if I'm facing criminal charges.

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Yeah but, supposed sealed indictment aside, which nobody can really prove exists, he hasn't been charged by the USA with anything neither so it's like he's running from two different things that have not even happened (yet).

Unionist

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Yeah but, supposed sealed indictment aside, which nobody can really prove exists, he hasn't been charged by the USA with anything neither so it's like he's running from two different things that have not even happened (yet).

Right! So by Bacchus' logic, he's probably guilty of both!! Brilliant, thanks Bec and Bac.

Bacchus

Im not saying he's guilty, Im just saying his actions serve him more than any cause of his.  He could string out extradition and gain international support far more than he does now with a US extradition attempt from Sweden (which never extradites anyone facing the death penalty)

Unionist

Bacchus wrote:

Im not saying he's guilty, Im just saying his actions serve him more than any cause of his.

It doesn't really matter, Bacchus. He may be a very repugnant shit in his personal life. He may be guilty of the serious crime of sexual assault. But he has a legitimate concern about political persecution (don't you think?) and that entitles him to refuge, no matter how selfish his motives may be.

Quote:
He could string out extradition and gain international support far more than he does now with a US extradition attempt from Sweden (which never extradites anyone facing the death penalty)

Well, maybe he's less interested in "international support" and more interested in plain old asylum. That's all he's asking for. It would be nice if progressive folks would unconditionally support him in that quest, as have all the OAS countries except Canada and the U.S. - and it would be nice if they could do so without feeling the need to proclaim him innocent or guilty of sexual assault, and without throwing mud at the Swedish women who filed their complaints - and without spewing outrageous misogynist crap as per George Galloway.

 

Bacchus

Well that would be nice but I suspect sides are way too polarized for that

contrarianna

Bacchus wrote:

The thing about all this that bothers me is it would make more sense for assange to want to go to sweden, clear his name and then, if his stated fears are accurate, reap a media winfall as extradition to the states plays out and the US would be exposed as the bully he portrays it and we all suspect.

Running from that leads me to believe he is thinking of only him self and that the sexual assault accusations have merit

Guilty or innocent, as explained before, the Swedish accusations (not charges) are a pretext for his capture and further extradition. But should he ever be charged exclusively under Swedish law, and even if he was found guilty, the resultant sentencing would be far less onerous than being a lifelong fugitive in an embassy from the tender mercies of the US and its Western political minions. 

As for the "media windfall" the media has shown relentless antagonism toward Assange long before the latter accusations, which are only the current primary focus for his vilification. (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media... )

It's naive to assume that the sealed US extradition which the media has poo-pooed, or entirely ignored, would suddenly become a widespread "Omigod he was right, and we were wrong!"
The media would seamlessly shift gears to pseudo-legalize why extradition to the US is just and not at all related to the Swedish accusations, and why Assange deserves to be charged for his political "crimes"--as many had already done prior to the latter accusations.
Even if in the impossible world of such an imagined "media windfall", it would hardly be compensation for a life in a US hellhole.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Unionist wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Yeah but, supposed sealed indictment aside, which nobody can really prove exists, he hasn't been charged by the USA with anything neither so it's like he's running from two different things that have not even happened (yet).

Right! So by Bacchus' logic, he's probably guilty of both!! Brilliant, thanks Bec and Bac.

Perhaps by his logic, which is not mine by the way, but I wasn't addressing your post at all.

quizzical

'sealed indictment aside'???????? how can you even put that out there??????

and i asked again has anyone ever heard ever of a country asking for extradition when they haven't even charged someone with a crime?????

he already has international support.  why the hell would he want to be rendered to the USA???? i don't care what cause i represent...bottom line is if there is a target on me for going against the powers that be and i might end up disappearing i'm going to protect myself!!!!!

quizzical

'sealed indictment aside'???????? how can you even put that out there??????

and i asked again has anyone ever heard ever of a country asking for extradition when they haven't even charged someone with a crime?????

he already has international support.  why the hell would he want to be rendered to the USA???? i don't care what cause i represent...bottom line is if there is a target on me for going against the powers that be and i might end up disappearing i'm going to protect myself!!!!!

Bacchus

Actually many countries extradite to allow for questioning in a suspected crime.  Sweden's is a little unusual in that its for questioning to establish if there was a crime as opposed to others where its to interview to see if the person is the suspect wanted for a already established crime

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

quizzical wrote:

'sealed indictment aside'???????? how can you even put that out there??????

'Supposed' 'sealed indictment aside'

I don't mind you quoting me or picking my posts apart but please select everything in a quote if you do. You left out a word, there's a big difference in the meaning when you drop that one word. I hope it wasn't on purpose to try and change what I said.

quizzical

i went and looked up extradition laws in Europe.

well tried to copy and paste and won't even do the link for some reason. so google  European Convention for Extradition and have a read!!!!!

it says nothing about  "questioning"!!!! going to type link out.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/024.htm

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

Kara

Fidel wrote:

I apologize if I have offended you. I'm not assuming that anyone is lying, and the two people accusing Assange obviously have a good lawyer with integrity representing them. 

On the other hand, Assange and his lawyers have invited Swedish authorities to interview Assange there at the Ecuadoran embassy in London. They have refused.

They could also issue a guarantee that Swedish authorities would abide by international law and not allow extradition to the United States where Assange's right to a fair trial is highly in doubt. 

It appears that none of Sweden, Britain or the United States of America are interested in adhering to international law. Assange has agreed to cooperate, so why can't the U.S and its European minions of doom offer to do the same? And given the current state of lawlessness in America and Europe with respect to all that has happened since 9/11, I, personally, would not trust anything western governments offered me if I was in Assange's situation. The two women accusing Assange have rights, and so does Julian Assange have certain rights. And the entire situation is tainted by colder war political maneuvering. It's not saying very much for the state of lawlessness in general here in the western world. This is just a small example of western world hypocrisy, and it's on display for all the world to observe. 

You didn't really offend me so much as the article that was posted earlier (not by you), which stated unequivocally that the allegations against Assange were false.  The article should never have been posted without an accompanying denunciation of those extremely offensive passages relating to the women involved.  I'm sorry if I came off too aggressively towards you but it's a sensitive subject to me.  I was the victim of a very violent rape many years ago and when I finally returned to work after nearly a month recovering from serious injuries, a co-worker told me a number of the guys at work had made comments along the lines of "what did she expect with the way she dresses" - typical pig engineers.  I quit that day because the management would not do anything about those pigs.  The comments in the article just came off the same way - denigrating the alleged victims.

I certainly understand why Assange has sought asylum in the Ecuadoran embassy because he has no reason to trust any of the governments involved and is potentially facing punishment far worse than even a rape conviction would merit.  One thing is certain - he cannot live in the embassy forever.  Hopefully a solution will be worked out but I doubt there will be a solution that respects both Assange's rights and the alleged victims rights.

Pages