Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
Breaking News
posted by FatPhil on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the shoulda-taken-the-tea-chest-option-years-back dept.

Breaking: Met police confirm that Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy.

Mr Assange took refuge in the embassy seven years ago to avoid extradition to Sweden over a sexual assault case that has since been dropped.

The Met Police said he was arrested for failing to surrender to the court.

Ecuador's president Lenin Moreno said it withdrew Mr Assange's asylum after his repeated violations to international conventions.

But WikiLeaks tweeted that Ecuador had acted illegally in terminating Mr Assange's political asylum "in violation of international law".

[...] Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum.

After his arrest for failing to surrender to the court, police said he had been further arrested on behalf of US authorities under an extradition warrant.

He doesn't look happy, to say the least.

Update: As this is a breaking story, more information is coming out regularly - one source that updates their reports frequently is Zero Hedge - thanks boru!

Previously: New Analysis of Swedish Police Report Confirms Julian Assange's Version in Sweden's Case
Ecuador Reportedly Almost Ready to Hand Julian Assange Over to UK Authorities
UK Said Assange Would Not be Extradited If He Leaves Embassy Refuge
Inadvertent Court Filing Suggests that the U.S. DoJ is Preparing to Indict Julian Assange
U.S. Ramping Up Probe Against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Says
Ecuador Denies That Julian Assange Will be Evicted From Embassy in London

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:41PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:41PM (#828384)

    That's a misleading framing of events. NEITHER of the women had a problem until they found out about eachother

    And THAT is a misleading framing of events. It can take a while for people to process things that happen to them, especially things they have no frame of reference for. The fact that finding out about each other's experiences prompted them to start re-examining what happened to them doesn't invalidate the conclusions they eventually came too. Smart people change their minds given new information, its pedantry to stubbornly insist that a better understanding doesn't allow you to re-evaluate how you feel about something that happened to you.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Redundant=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Redundant' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Pav on Friday April 12 2019, @12:17AM (2 children)

    by Pav (114) on Friday April 12 2019, @12:17AM (#828398)

    But there's no evidence to suggest what you're saying... actually quite the contrary. Both were angry at his two-timing, and the younger in particular was afraid of being infected with an STD. That investigative report I posted above says they a) wanted to publicly embarrass him (and presumably warn other women he was a womaniser, but the report doesn't specifically mention that warning others was part of their motivation), and b) force him to take an STD test. Both are on record saying they didn't feel they had been raped. Highly irregularly they were contacted by a prosecutor from another part of the country. Why would something like that happen? Presumably one of them was helped or perhaps even pressured into a different conclusion at a later date, though the other refused that "help".

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @01:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @01:49AM (#828429)

      Your linked article isn't even close to conclusive. The women don't speak and their lawyer gets about 4 lines in the entire interview, meanwhile pro-assange people are spouting off left and right.

      For you to claim that it is some kind of straight-up, even-handed analysis reveals that you are crazy biased and nobody should trust a word you say.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Friday April 12 2019, @08:26AM

      by ledow (5567) on Friday April 12 2019, @08:26AM (#828530) Homepage

      Guess what most rape / sexual assault victims do when the world's press suddenly starts focusing on them, interviewing them, pursuing them, questioning them about their sex life?

      They drop charges and don't want to discuss it.

      There's a reason that a prosecutor is able to continue to press charges even if the victims themselves won't proceed.

      You can no more assume that Assange is telling the truth than the women, so don't pretend you can.

      Asking a sexual partner for an STD test after they have had sex with you unprotected is a not-unreasonable request. It's not like Assange denies having sex with them at all, in any way, whatsoever. They just want him to get tested.

      If it had been the other way round and Assange thought he caught something from them, you can be damn sure that he'd want them to get tested, and that would have been aired to the world's press at the time, too.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @02:46PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @02:46PM (#828615) Homepage Journal


    Through a Glass, Darkly -George Patton