Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy, London

[Balbi]

This argument just got a lot uglier.

 

[Balbi]

Sorry, did I say ugly? I meant tinged with deplorable misogyny. The sort that Assange's flight from actually defending himself without a byline attached has done nothing to combat.

 

[Wilf]

Must admit I didn't get past the homeless jibe to notice the prostitution stuff. You're a reall class act LC.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Whatever happens now, the US have certainly gotten their revenge on Assange and sent out a big warning to anyone else who wants to fuck with them or their agents.

 

[elbows]

Whatever happens now, the US have certainly gotten their revenge on Assange and sent out a big warning to anyone else who wants to fuck with them or their agents.

This is another area where those who think they are fighting the USA may actually end up helping the USA without the USA actually having to lift a finger.

Very similar to when people describe the CIA as being omnipotent, or when conspiracy promoters get paranoid and go on the run because they've decided the man is out to get them. You are amplifying the deterrent effect, doing their work for them!

People who want to play high stakes games and think they are going into it with open eyes, should check again before they start if they really want to see their cause promoted rather than damaged. Because if the time comes when the heat is on, what you really need to do is refuse to soil yourself in the face of intimidation. Refuse to even acknowledge it if possible, and certainly don't big up their capabilities just because you think you are going to end up a martyr for the cause.

This isn't applicable to every struggle, but if the front involves trying to expose the dark arts and you expect them to come get you, you better be made of the right stuff and have your priorities in order.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So how's he going to get out of the embassy without being nicked? Helicopter?

Embassy vehicle is moving sovereign territory.

 

[elbows]

I mean for fucks sake, comments about prostitution and suchlike have pissed me off, but even if I put that to one side for a moment and suppose that he may was snared in a honeytrap, that still leaves him open to criticism in my book.

If you've decided to mess with one of the most powerful forces in the world in a very dramatic and high-profile manner, do not put your genitals anywhere near anybody that is not a well known and trusted part of your life, and especially not at the moment where the heat on you is fresh and near a peak.

I mean this fucker fancied himself as clued up, as a former hacker he isn't exactly a million miles away from the dark arts himself, so why should I be that sympathetic if these traits proved to be a poor fit with his dubious attitudes towards women?

Nobody is perfect and I do have sympathy for people that let one of their less attractive traits get the better of them, mostly if there is no victim. But certainly not when your dodgy traits leads you to behaviour that is so directly in conflict with the cause you claim to fight for, the stench of hypocrisy is simply too great.

If citizens of the world were to sit round and come up with the criteria necessary for a decent whistle blowing and leaking system to exist and be sustained, what sort of things might they come up with? The need for trust between the leakers and the entity, between the entity and the media partners it may seek to use to disseminate the info, and trust between the entity and the public. The entity would need to have a variety of features that guarded against corruption, and would need to set an example in terms of how information should be dealt with, including clear principals on subjects such as anonymity and accountability. The entity would have to work strenuously to avoid being associated with certain countries in particular. And it would need to have a structure which meant it was a proper sustainable institution that was not reliant on any one particular individual to function. In reality I wouldn't expect such an entity to get it right first time on all of these fronts, but thanks to Assange wikileaks seems to have failed with every single one of these.

When trying to read some wikileaks earlier I was repeatedly interrupted by an intrusive popup asking for money. I don't think it is too much to ask that we be allowed to find out how much of a case Assange has to answer regarding a very different sort of intrusive popup.

 

[danny la rouge]

So how's he going to get out of the embassy without being nicked? Helicopter?

Diplomatic bag.

 

[London_Calling]

what has prostitution got to do with anything? has it been mentioned anywhere at all in the reports? i am confused as to what you are saying here. was this woman a prostitute (i was under the impression both complainants were wikileaks volunteers) and if so does that suggest her rights to a penis-free sleep have been repealed because of her sex work?

The issue for a state prosecutor is whether the evidence meets the legal threshold - if it does it may end up before a jury. In this case, the first prosecutor decided it didn't, a later one decided it did - but only on the condom issue. Apart from much else it means two prosecutors, apart in time, weren't prepared to put the consent issue to a jury. Or maybe it means the party making the allegation isn't herself disputing consent. We have no way of knowing.

Either way, the standard reason for (two) decisions not to prosecute (on consent) is that neither prosecutor thought a jury would come close to buying it. Usual reasons for coming to that view include (a) no witnesses and (b) sex work. Doesn't have to be, just more commonplace than 'also works at Wikileaks'. Unofficially they may be thinking 'how the hell do I get this past a jury of conservative home owners and if I don't is my career fucked'.

 

[danny la rouge]

Embassy vehicle is moving sovereign territory.

If you're referring to extraterritoriality, I don't think you're right. Extraterritoriality isn't automatically conferred upon embassies and consulates, although it might be on occasion, by special treaty. But as a generality, an embassy is not the sovereign soil of the country it represents. It would be unusual if the Ecuadorian Embassy was not subject to English law.

 

[smmudge]

Hmm well, when it comes to John Pilger's version vs. the mainstream media, sorry, but I tend to favour Pilger.....

 

[elbows]

Was Pilger hiding in the wardrobe then and witnessed the reality?

 

[danny la rouge]

Pilger, laudable as his work may be in general, has been wrong in the past.

 

[London_Calling]

Embassy vehicle is moving sovereign territory.

Contrary to popular myth, an embassy almost always isn't so a car certainly would not be 'sovereign territory'.

 

[elbows]

We have no way of knowing.

Which is one of the reasons I'd like the law to proceed, so that judgements are not simply left to an ill-informed public who might end up trampling all over the possible victims in their quest to explain all the theoretical possibilities of the case.

Whats the alternative? People like Assange can do what they like and victims must keep quiet or be smeared as being a prostitute or CIA operative? And even their smearing is deemed irrelevant compared to the possibility that Assange himself is being smeared?

 

[smmudge]

Pilger, laudable as his work may be in general, has been wrong in the past.

But at least he cares about truth in general.

 

[smmudge]

Was Pilger hiding in the wardrobe then and witnessed the reality?

Maybe, it seems like everyone else was.

 

[elbows]

The truth in general should never be allowed to mask the truth of specific occasions/details.

Nobody should be granted immunity via truisms.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Diplomatic bag.

Worked for Umaro Diko

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well, it's unlikely the Ecuadorians will hang onto him for long I'd say, so he's pretty much sure to be going to Sweden.

Who'd like to make a bet that he won't get deported to the US after that?

(edit: actually, it would be far smarter to let him stay there, so he could sit in legal exile, unable to enter lots of countries, branded as a rapist. But assuming he does actually go to Sweden.)

 

[London_Calling]

Whats the alternative?

One alternative would to not have bi-lateral extradition treaties with bonkers countries like the USA.

If I were Assange I'd absolutely take my chances in Sweden - esp. when prosecutors are divided as to whether there is a case to answer. Worst case: 4 years tops. That's small potatoes compared to the inevitable next step - an executive jet to The Beacon of Democracy and several decades playing wifey to Big Hank from Alabama. In a very confined space.

 

[smmudge]

The truth in general should never be allowed to mask the truth of specific occasions/details.

Nobody should be granted immunity via truisms.

That doesn't make any sense. When would a general truth ever 'mask' a truth of 'specifics'? Are you saying that one truth can contradict another?

 

[Wilf]

That doesn't make any sense. When would a general truth ever 'mask' a truth of 'specifics'? Are you saying that one truth can contradict another?

I suspect some Assange supprters are saying that one truth stops them worrying about another (alleged) truth.

 

[smmudge]

Anyway this is Pilger's take on it. Maybe he's wrong, maybe it's just wishful thinking on his part (he does appear to be a close associate of Assange). Who knows, but I would prefer to grant Assange the basic human right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the chance for him to prove it without the threat of further human rights violations.

 

[elbows]

That doesn't make any sense. When would a general truth ever 'mask' a truth of 'specifics'? Are you saying that one truth can contradict another?

I may have used some inappropriate words. Would have been on safer ground if I'd said generalisation rather than truism for a start.

In this specific case people can go on about whatever general well-founded views they like about individual enemies of a state being picked off by fair means or foul, it doesn't mean Assange should be free of responsibility for his actions.

Best way to turn this train-wreck into a positive is if the lesson people learnt from it was this:

Don't be deterred from whistle blowing, be deterred from disrespecting the parameters that others set out when they let you sleep with them.

 

[elbows]

Anyway this is Pilger's take on it. Maybe he's wrong, maybe it's just wishful thinking on his part (he does appear to be a close associate of Assange). Who knows, but I would prefer to grant Assange the basic human right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the chance for him to prove it without the threat of further human rights violations.

He can only prove it by engaging with the case instead of trying every trick to avoid it!

 

[London_Calling]

Right, and the personal jet and exclusive accommodation for several decades that follows, regardless of the Swedish verdict?

 

[smmudge]

He can only prove it by engaging with the case instead of trying every trick to avoid it!

What is he trying to avoid?

Assange had remained in Sweden for more than five weeks after the rape allegation was made -- and subsequently dismissed by the chief prosecutor in Stockholm – and that repeated attempts by him and his Swedish lawyer to meet a second prosecutor, who re-opened the case following the intervention of a government politician, had failed. And yet, as Burke pointed out, this prosecutor had granted him permission to fly to London where “he also offered to be interviewed – a normal practice in such cases”. So it seems odd, at the very least, that the prosecutor then issued a European Arrest Warrant. The Observer did not publish Burke’s letter.

This record-straightening is crucial because it describes the perfidious behaviour of the Swedish authorities – a bizarre sequence confirmed to me by other journalists in Stockholm and by Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig. Not only that; Burke catalogued the unforeseen danger Assange faces should he be extradited to Sweden. “Documents released by Wikileaks since Assange moved to England,” he wrote, “clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is ample reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights.”

 

[elbows]

Right, and the personal jet and exclusive accommodation for several decades that follows, regardless of the Swedish verdict?

I already ranted about people adding to the deterrent effect by painting these things as forgone conclusions. They aren't.

Last time I checked the UK didn't exactly have a favourable and balanced extradition treaty with the USA, why does he need to be in Sweden before the USA make their move? Do they even want the various hassles and downsides that would stem from dealing with him in such a manner? They already deterred potential whistleblowers by nabbing Bradley Manning, they fucked with wikileaks financially, and Assange damaged his own reputation in more ways than they could ever hope for. I don't want to push these points too far, they may want to do more, but lets not pretend we actually know every future plot twist.

Oh I just found this:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...dite-assange-from-uk-carr-20120621-20p76.html

Foreign Minister Bob Carr believes Julian Assange could be extradited to the US from the United Kingdom just as easily as he could from Sweden.

"If the US were pursuing extradition of Julian Assange they could do it just as easily - according to some experts more easily - from the United Kingdom ... than from Sweden," he told ABC Radio on Thursday.

 

[elbows]

What is he trying to avoid?

Completing the process that was set in motion when he did things that caused two women to ask the police if its possible to require him to get a HIV test.