SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ecuador's foreign minister has blamed Britain over the stalemate surrounding WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange following rekindled attempts to secure his safe exit from Quito's embassy in London.
"On the issue of mediation, I have to say very honestly that it has not been successful because two parties are needed to mediate, [sic]" Maria Fernanda Espinosa, the Ecuadorian foreign minister, told reporters Friday with respect to the Assange case, Agence France-Presse translated.
"Ecuador is willing but the other party is not," she added, referring to Britain, according to Reuters.
On the other hand, from the same source, and as we have already reported:
British authorities argue that Mr. Assange, an Australian, was under house arrest when he entered the embassy and should be apprehended for having breached his bail conditions if and when he exits.
Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/23/ecuador-blames-britain-over-julian-assange-impasse/
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:23PM (20 children)
What part could they play?
I suppose Australia could have protected him themselves (not likely with their close ties to the US and Britain), or could chime in to ask nicely that Ecuador stop protecting him, but beyond that there's not much they could realistically do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:45PM (7 children)
Sure they could.
Happens all the time for small types of crimes. (The longer the sentence the more willing the UK is to shift the bill to someone else).
All he's wanted for now is a bail jump. The bail bondsman is out some amount of money. (The crown is out nothing at all).
Australia could force the issue by just making loud public demands, or promising to extract said bail themselves in their home courts. Then quietly dismissing the case once Assange is home.
Its clearly the UK government who is perverting the course of justice here.
They saw to it that their Asperger boy got tried (more likely nothing happens to him) in the UK. They know how the game is played.
Nothing but false pride keeps them from looking for a way out of this mess.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:13PM (2 children)
Meanwhile the British taxpayer has paid a fortune to keep the Ecuadorian embassy under 24 hour surveillance for several years.
I don't think they have done that for any other suspected or alleged rapist or bail jumper.
(Score: 4, Funny) by tftp on Sunday February 25 2018, @11:33PM
The Ecuadorians couldn't buy this protection for any money.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @11:59PM
> I don't think they have done that for any other suspected or alleged rapist or bail jumper.
Bail jumping is what the British are leaning on. Technically that's all they have. But the large smear campaign depends on bald face lies, which are common enough that some repeat or imply them. Some because of the sheer frequency of repetition and some because of wishful thinking and an agenda against Jualian or even againt men in general.
If you've ended up with the mistaken belief that he was in any way wanted for rape, then you should read more about the persecution of Julian Assange [paulcraigroberts.org]. There wasn't any case against him and he cleared his departure with the Swedish government. Hours later a new, different prosecutor reopened the investigation and issued an Interpol "red alert".
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday February 25 2018, @10:09PM (3 children)
Not true. Actually, some wealthy folk in the UK are out of what to them is a small amount of money. The UK doesn't have bail bondsmen.
(Score: 0, Troll) by frojack on Sunday February 25 2018, @10:32PM (2 children)
Calling it a different are doesn't mean you don't have the same thing. You don't have potato chips in the UK either by that reasoning.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday February 25 2018, @11:03PM
I didn't say that the UK doesn't have a bail system. Can't you read?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @08:14PM
It's called a surety in the US too. For example, I got sent to jail awaiting trial on 100k cash assurety. Unless otherwise specified, only 10% of this amount needs to be posted. The 10% is "bond". If "no 10%" is specified, it's just a surety. Easiest way is to just call everything bail.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Sunday February 25 2018, @11:46PM (11 children)
Assange fled to the Ecuadorian embassy because he was afraid that the UK was about to hand him over to the US (and from there a 1-way ticket to Gitmo).
The Australian government would be no less likely to roll over and have the US tickle its tummy than the UK. No point in seeking protection from them.
My guess is that the UK will still refuse the drop the case because they are still under a promise to send Julian off to the US. If not for that, it would have been called off as a waste of time and money years ago.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday February 26 2018, @09:17AM (10 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @10:57AM (9 children)
He was worried they were going to ship him to Sweden, who would have handed him straight over to the USA. Now the brits are pissed because he disrespected their courts and has made them look like petty idiots.
He is not a UK citizen, and there is no reason they wouldn't deport him to a USA 'friendly' country as soon as he has served a token sentence for bail jumping.
Right from the start the only thing he ever demanded in order to leave the embassy was an assurance that he wouldn't be sent to the USA. UK/Sweden flat out refused to provide it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday February 26 2018, @12:24PM (8 children)
Which makes even less sense: the extradition treaty between Sweden and the UK does not allow Sweden to forward-extradite him.
No, they're annoyed with him because he agreed to bail terms and then jumped bail. He didn't turn up for extradition hearings and argue his case in court, he just violated the terms of his bail.
If he were deported, it would be back to his country of citizenship - formerly Australia, now Ecuador.
Yes, because that guarantee made no sense. The UK had not received an extradition request from the USA and extradition to Sweden would not have permitted Sweden to extradite him to the USA (without violating the extradition treaty with the UK), so extradition to the USA wasn't on the table. No one was going to give him a blank cheque against future extradition requests, because that kind of thing has to go through the courts. If the USA filed an extradition request then they'd have to provide evidence that he'd committed a crime, that the crime was one recognised by the UK, that he would not suffer the death penalty if convicted, that he would receive a fair trial, and so on. His lawyers could quite easily have challenged several of these claims, which is probably why the USA never bothered to try to extradite him.
About the only plausible thing that might have happened was that the UK extradite him to Sweden and then refuse him entry back, at which point he'd have been deported to Australia. At the time, the Australian government was very pro-US, so might have bent their extradition rules to send him there.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 27 2018, @12:50AM (7 children)
There's no "forward extradition" involved, I don't think (can't find any definition) only chain of custody.
The way it's assumed the plan would work is:
Ecuador gives him to U.K for bail-jumping or whatever.
U.K. inflicts whatever "justice" they want, possibly purely symbolic.
... but, Assange is now in U.K. jurisdiction, so they're free to extradite him to Sweden for outstanding rape charges
Sweden inflicts whatever "justice" they want, probably nothing since the charges have long since been shown to be unsubstantiated
... but, Assange is now in Swedish jurisdiction, so they're free to extradite him to the U.S.
U.S. inflicts the "justice" Assange is actually afraid of.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday February 27 2018, @11:54AM (6 children)
Nope. Assange is in Sweden as a result of extradition. The Swedes are required by the extradition treaty to either charge him with a crime or permit him to leave the country. They are not allowed to extradite him to the USA, he must be allowed to return to the UK (which may deport him to his country of Ecuador). This provision is explicitly in most extradition treaties to prevent countries from sending indirect extradition requests that they think will be more readily accepted.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 27 2018, @02:44PM (5 children)
The "permit him to leave the country" could really be all it takes. All you have to do is follow him and notify your allies that he'll be leaving the country at , or is on a plane that will land there, and they can be waiting to apprehend him there. Seems like you would thus live up to the letter of your treaty obligations, while falling only just shy of actually personally handing him over to your allies.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:03PM
Oops, markeup malfunction, that should be:
...leaving the country at [time and location], or is on a plane...
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday February 27 2018, @03:35PM (3 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:03AM (2 children)
Pretty much anybody in power anywhere doesn't like Assange. They might not want a US snatch squad operating on their turf, but most politicians would be happy to have their own police 'detain him for questioning' while the extradition process goes through, and then hand him over.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday February 28 2018, @01:57PM (1 child)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01 2018, @09:23AM
Possibly illegal for Sweden to do this (who enforces laws that control sovereign countries?), but even with your laws, there is nothing to stop Sweden saying "It's all cleared up, you are free to go, have a nice day! Bye". Then what?
How does he get to Ecuador, given that the yanks were willing to force down the President of Bolivia's plane just based on a rumour of Snowden being on board.