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: 2) by frojack on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:02PM (22 children)
I find it interesting that Australia seems to avoid any part of this pissing contest.
I'd be looking for a new country.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(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.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:58PM
Yes, because the Australian politicians are too afraid to piss off their masters, the Americans, and their former masters, the POMs. On top of that they're also pissed because wikileaks has also aired some of their dirty laundry.
We've seen our government and media shining a sympathetic light on Australian drug dealers caught red-handed in various Asian countries with death penalties.
Looking for a new country is much easier said than done though.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:04PM (7 children)
So what? That does not preclude the right to self defense against arbitrary authority. We need to stop sanctifying the state. The right to self defense is absolute.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:14PM (4 children)
Not in the UK.
Do not project your US ideals upon them. They have a different form of gov. You are at the will of the crown. You can enjoy quite a large number of freedoms but all of it is at the whim of the crown. The US flipped that as we have rights the gov shall not limit your rights. The constitution we have is a government limiter not a right giver, we already have the rights.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:26PM
All men have those rights. Some countries are run by assholes.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:52PM (2 children)
Even in the US you don't have the right to "self defense against arbitrary authority". You don't get to decide what is arbitrary.
You actually stand a better chance in court than barricading yourself and bleating self defense from the government. When has that EVER gone well?
There is a lot of delusional understanding of supposed "rights" in the US, to say nothing about the rest of the world.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:29PM
Everyone has a right to self defense. And anyone with the requisite mental faculties certainly can decide for themselves what is arbitrary.
Whether anyone else respects that decision is a separate issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @06:10PM
The country you live in is irrelevant. I have no regard for the arbitrary capricious laws of man. The right to self defense is absolute, as is any law of nature. Now, the ability to protect that right is still up for grabs. It is clearly a case of might makes right, but in reality, that is all we have. I mean, why else does a cop need to carry a gun?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @12:10AM (1 child)
> So what? That does not preclude the right to self defense against arbitrary authority. We need to stop sanctifying the state. The right to self defense is absolute.
It's not absolute. The UK is just wrong on this. So are you. The UN formally found in February 2016 that Julian Assange is unlawfully detained by Sweden and the UK:
https://www.justice4assange.com/UN-Working-Group-on-Arbitrary.html [justice4assange.com]
Or read it from the UN itself directly, but watch out for docx malware:
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx [ohchr.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @04:17AM
Than k you, I needed a good laugh.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by cubancigar11 on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:15PM (14 children)
If for a moment we suspend belief that he will be illegally extradited to US, the punishment for jumping bail is definitely almost nothing once you are ready to pay huge sums of money and accept your mistake in court. He is at-max looking at 1 week incarceration in my understanding - nothing compared to his ongoing problem. I think he is more worried about his place to stay after he is freed. Where exactly will he go? Australia has already impounded his passport afaik, and Ecuador won't take him.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:24PM (1 child)
Actually, Ecuador granted him citizenship in January [reuters.com]. So they would take him (just not hanging around the embassy aka Assange crib anymore). All Assange would need to do is get a flight to Ecuador without the CIA
renditioningkidnapping him.[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday February 26 2018, @04:41AM
Hmm. I thought it was only because Ecuador wanted him out of the embassy and ran out of all other options. My reading of that is that there are more risks being outside of that building for Assange than not, right? Couldn't USA assassinate him in Ecuador? It is not really a legal paradise! Or Ecuador can just not contest his extradition request from USA in exchange of some favors?
I just don't think the risks are as simple as kidnapping Assange from UK when the whole world is looking at him and that place.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by zocalo on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:36PM (7 children)
Ecuador has granted him citzenship [theguardian.com] in an attempt to progress the situation. That's possibly as much to do with getting their lodger out of an embassy that isn't really equipped for a long term residency as much as anything else, but they're definitely willing to take him. As you say, the only thing he's really looking at is the penalty for jumping bail, and that even could potentially be mitigated with a deal in return for simply agreeing to turn himself in and accepting the pre-arranged punishment (a fine - probably quite significant if costs are involved - and a few weeks incarceration, or whatever), then off to Ecuador, or wherever else he might want to go that will let him in. The problem here isn't the UK; it's Julian Assange's unwillingness to accept responsibility for his decision to breach the conditions of his bail.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Sunday February 25 2018, @11:50PM (4 children)
No, the problem here is that the UK has consistently refused to rule out extraditing Assange to the US where he will rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life for the crime of embarrassing their government.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday February 26 2018, @11:37AM
Is there any legal precedence of UK promising not to extradite someone? UK in general is very resilient in extradition, legally speaking, due to historical reasons (they wouldn't allow a UK citizen to be tried anywhere except UK, not even in British colonies).
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday February 26 2018, @12:27PM (1 child)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday February 26 2018, @11:05PM
When directly asked whether the UK have already received an extradition request, the government have consistently refused to confirm or deny. Given they won't tell us whether a request has already been received, my guess is "Yes".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @02:37PM
Assange wants to be treated like a princess when he comes out so he can lord it over "the system" that he defeated.
I think he needs a few more years in the embassy, at least long enough to see out Trump's term. A suitable exit would be him smiling like a madman, dressed in a straight-jacket covered in excrement and vomit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Monday February 26 2018, @12:53AM
Bail for an illegal detention? Consider it void.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday February 26 2018, @04:47AM
You may be right. Though I would like not to believe it. There ought to be something more that he is seeing. Or maybe he is paranoid. Being stuck inside a building for such long time can do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:42PM
The Presidential Suite at Gitmo is currently available.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @12:16AM
Why shoud he just go to jail? He's not done anything except be illegally detained by the UK. That is on the UK not him.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case [scribd.com]
Now he is an Ecuadorean citizen and would be able to go to Ecuador right way if the UK were not harassing him as they are. Lying about that won't help your grudge against him get resolved.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday February 26 2018, @05:30PM (1 child)
"If we set aside the entire reason he's in the embassy in the first place...he can just leave!"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday February 26 2018, @06:14PM
Not fair! When he went in the embassy, he was being pursued for a very serious and a very fake (re-opened) crime committed into a foreign country which was demanding extradition. Currently he is wanted only for a very simple offense (bail jumping) that cannot be argued away, but can be potentially converted into a fine, in the country where he is currently residing, and as a citizen of foreign country, with no criminal trial pending in any foreign country.
He was legally in a very murky situation, he is currently in a very very clear position.
I don't know if there is a case pending against him in USA and if an extradition request is already pending against him in UK from USA, so I might be wrong.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday February 26 2018, @03:17PM (4 children)
I think this is probably an automatic wrong answer, as it wouldn't surprise me if diplomatic staff and visas have to be issued before a person enters the country. But aside from that, could Ecuador appoint Assange as technical staff to the embassy, giving him diplomatic immunity? If it worked, all they can then do is make him Persona Non Grata and he goes to Ecuador.
For all the deportation ideas above, is there anything that permits a deportee to choose where they exit to? And is there anything that says someone must be deported to their country of origin, or can the deporting nation choose the destination if they're willing to take the diplomatic heat?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26 2018, @08:14PM
It doesn't work like iun the movies. The host country has to accept the appointment of someone as a diplomat for diplomatic immunity to kick in, and it is usually done before they even arrive in the country.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Fluffeh on Monday February 26 2018, @08:59PM
They tried this approach but the UK government has to accept the diplomatic staff request (which they did not) so they could not get him out with that immunity - back to the holding pattern basically.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:38AM (1 child)
You think wrongly. It is the unchallenged sovereign right of any state to name their own diplomats, they need no approval from anyone, excepting only the approintment of the head of the mission himself. Only AFTER such an appointment has been made does the receiving state have the option to reply that the choice is *persona non grata.* At which point they are obliged to allow him to leave the country unmolested and in a "reasonable time."
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
Articles 9, 10, and 39 spell this out quite clearly.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 02 2018, @06:44PM
Thanks for the citation - I knew there had to be something like that existing.
This sig for rent.