Granted !! Wikileaks Julian Assange Seeks Asylum At Ecuador's London Embassy - Granted!!!!

I don't understand this guy.

He is wasting millions of ££s of Taxpayers money by dragging this through the courts.

I would like him to sod off myself.

I mean the guy is trying to escape a court hearing in Sweden for crying out loud.

Not exactly a country known for its brutal regime and prison system.

Dan

The story becomes more and more interesting.

And puzzling.

Last night, my feeling was that, on balance, Ecuador was likely to decline his request for asylum on the grounds that he's not seriously "a person whose life is in danger".

But today, I'm not quite so sure.

People keep making the point that, if taken to Sweden, he'll be extradited to America and stand trial there for "political offenses" which do, at least nominally, carry a death penalty. (I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting the death penalty option would be used, or even requested, of course, but it's there nominally, and maybe that's enough?).

What I simply can't begin to understand (and was somehow slightly heartened to discover today that the BBC's Legal Correspondent, Joshua Rozenberg, also can't understand it) is, even if Ecuador does grant him political asylum, how are they proposing to get him out of the building?! :confused:

This makes no sense at all to me.

As soon as he steps outside that embassy, even if on his way to Heathrow Airport and a flight to Quito, there's a policeman standing outside (day and night) waiting to arrest him and take him into custody for breaching his bail conditions just by being inside there and not reporting daily, in person, to the police station as the court instructed.

The only way he can avoid arrest, it seems, is if Ecuador grants him "diplomatic status" and surely they're neither willing nor sensibly able to do that?! :confused:

They can hardly smuggle him out in the back of a van with tinted windows ... this is Central London in 2012, not Berlin in the 1960's/70's! :p

So I'm perplexed ... but fascinated.

Sweden should just guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to the US and that would be that.

I ran out of "thanks" for the day, apparently, but thanks very much for this update. I've been watching the news on and off, on this story, and awaiting developments with great interest.

Assange is Australian...and he did give the gov't right to redact apparently prior to publication. I have no idea where they get a case.

The irony was not lost on me...but this is also Correa's way of telling the US to stick it.

The US wanted to talk to Assange to question him about the leaks given out by Manning who is currently in the brig. He is NOT wanted for "treason" in the U.S. - that would make no sense as he's not a US citizen.

There is no warrant out for JA's arrest on criminal charges in the US that I can find listed anywhere.

There is a warrant in Sweden for molestation - he says it didn't happen but has done everything possible to keep from going to trial to prove that.

I think he has maneuvered himself into a corner to avoid trial in Sweden.

What Assange has done is the ultimate crime - he's insulted several governments and made officials look like fools. They don't like that

He created this net when he said he was going to Sweden to face the sex charges against him - and then ran instead. He may be brilliant online - but I think personally the guy's a bit of a dope.

Assange Embassy Controversy: Britain Threatens To Raid Ecuador's Embassy Over Amnesty Issue

It seems there's a certain "police presence" outside the embassy: UK police descend on Assange's embassy refuge

I imagine they'll have pretty strict orders under no circumstances to try to go inside? :confused:

This is also interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19289649

Who knows? But you know what? The US could apply for extradition with him being in the UK. And they haven't.

Dan

On the BBC's 10.00pm News tonight, there was a brief interview with a retired, senior British Ambassador whose opinion was that the British Foreign Office had made a mistake by suggesting to Ecuador that they might invoke the 1987 Act in order to suspect the diplomatic status of Ecuador's embassy to go into it and arrest Assange, and that they surely realise now that that was a diplomatic blunder, and won't repeat it.

His contention was that this wouldn't be realistic, for many reasons, including fear of reprisals against British emabssies in other countries (perhaps in South America).

I imagine this must be right.

But on being asked, today, whether they ruled out asking Sweden to extradite him to the US, they wouldn't rule it out (that's according to the BBC and Sky News). If they ruled that out, I think there'd be no reason for Ecuador to have offered him asylum in the first place. That's what the whole thing's about, isn't it?

After dropping any prosecution of the banks that caused the financial mess...too late to act tough and have people believe it.

As most are aware, espionage, especially now they have the Patriot act, is not a charge to be taken lightly in the US...

Capital punishment by the United States federal government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is interesting is the US authorities are going after British banks (Standard Chartered, etc.) for rigging LIBOR - which they are quite right to do so in my opinion.

Somehow they are still not prosecuting Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc., for their malfeasance in the Sub-Prime debacle or any other of their manipulations or riggings.

I guess that's because the British banks didn't contribute to the election campaigns of anyone in Washington.

Anyway, that's somewhat off topic to this thread about Assange. I was going to post a link to the article in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald about the Australian government being fully aware that the US is going to go after Assange, but I see that Rondo has already posted it. If you haven't read it already, I recommend it to you.

I'm no fortune teller but I saw this coming as soon as I learned about the UK leadership making such pompous fools of themselves delivering those blundering threats:
"The OAS secretary general, José Miguel Insulza, said the meeting would not be about Assange but the 'the problem posed by the threat or warning made to Ecuador by the possibility of an intervention into its embassy in London. The issue that concerns us is the inviolability of diplomatic missions of all members of this organisation, something that is of interest to all of us.'"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Bold is mine.

This could get interesting.

Murder of Yvonne Fletcher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Mobley