SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-much-has-he-paid-for-room&board? dept.
Ecuador's President Lenin Moreno traveled to London on Friday for the ostensible purpose of speaking at the 2018 Global Disabilities Summit (Moreno has been using a wheelchair since being shot in a 1998 robbery attempt). The concealed, actual purpose of the President's trip is to meet with British officials to finalize an agreement under which Ecuador will withdraw its asylum protection of Julian Assange, in place since 2012, eject him from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and then hand over the WikiLeaks founder to British authorities.
Moreno's itinerary also notably includes a trip to Madrid, where he will meet with Spanish officials still seething over Assange's denunciation of human rights abuses perpetrated by Spain's central government against protesters marching for Catalonia independence. Almost three months ago, Ecuador blocked Assange from accessing the internet, and Assange has not been able to communicate with the outside world ever since. The primary factor in Ecuador's decision to silence him was Spanish anger over Assange's tweets about Catalonia. A source close to the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry and the President's office, unauthorized to speak publicly, has confirmed to the Intercept that Moreno is close to finalizing, if he has not already finalized, an agreement to hand over Assange to the UK within the next several weeks. The withdrawal of asylum and physical ejection of Assange could come as early as this week. On Friday, RT reported that Ecuador was preparing to enter into such an agreement.
[...] The central oddity of Assange's case – that he has been effectively imprisoned for eight years despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime – is virtually certain to be prolonged once Ecuador hands him over to the U.K. Even under the best-case scenario, it appears highly likely that Assange will continue to be imprisoned by British authorities. The only known criminal proceeding Assange currently faces is a pending 2012 arrest warrant for "failure to surrender" – basically a minor bail violation that arose when he obtained asylum from Ecuador rather than complying with bail conditions by returning to court for a hearing on his attempt to resist extradition to Sweden. That offense carries a prison term of three months and a fine, though it is possible that the time Assange has already spent in prison in the UK could be counted against that sentence. In 2010, Assange was imprisoned in Wandsworth Prison, kept in isolation, for 10 days until he was released on bail; he was then under house arrest for 550 days at the home of a supporter.
Assange's lawyer, Jen Robinson, told the Intercept that he would argue that all of that prison time already served should count toward (and thus completely fulfill) any prison term imposed on the "failure to surrender" charge, though British prosecutors would almost certainly contest that claim. Assange would also argue that he had a reasonable, valid basis for seeking asylum rather than submitting to UK authorities: namely, well-grounded fear that he would be extradited to the U.S. for prosecution for the act of publishing documents.
(Score: 1, Troll) by isostatic on Monday July 23 2018, @09:37AM (50 children)
The central oddity of Assange's case – that he has been effectively imprisoned for eight years
He has been free to leave the embassy at any time
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 23 2018, @09:47AM (33 children)
Yes, of course. And, you are also free to walk into any police station, at any time, and punch some random cop in the nose. Good luck with that.
(Score: 1, Troll) by isostatic on Monday July 23 2018, @10:26AM (25 children)
I wouldn't advise he do that, but if he did
Has he committed the crime he has been accused of?
If Yes, then he ran to escape justice. Do I care?
If No, then he shouldn't have run, he should have trusted in the UK, and perhaps Swedish justice system. These aren't tinpot countries that push 90% of suspects through "plea bargains". It's not like he couldn't afford a good defence.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 23 2018, @10:40AM (12 children)
Maybe not. But, the US is. And, if you'll recall, the original charges were brought up at the behest of the US government. The Swedes dropped the case, but the US got a special prosecutor to pursue those charges anyway. Your faith in the system seems to be misplaced.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday July 23 2018, @10:48AM (1 child)
Yeah, I'm with you. The American and British governments have lost all right to trust. They are the enemy of democracy and freedom, because it's been a long time since they represented it. Torture, kidnapping, murder, theft, and corruption rather do that.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday July 24 2018, @08:32AM
Especially after yesterday
Maybe Asange should have gone to Sweden where he would have been safe.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 23 2018, @04:54PM (9 children)
And, if you'll recall, the original charges were brought up at the behest of the US government.
That was alleged but never proven.
The Swedes dropped the case, but the US got a special prosecutor to pursue those charges anyway.
I never heard about a special prosecutor appointment (and a quick search doesn't return anything) so [CITATION NEEDED] on that as well. The only noise I've heard about US charges are recent, and come from the Trump Admin. Obama took a hands-off approach.
If the U.S. Could Prosecute Assange, It Would Have Already Done So [foreignpolicy.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by canopic jug on Monday July 23 2018, @05:33PM (8 children)
I never heard about a special prosecutor appointment (and a quick search doesn't return anything) so [CITATION NEEDED] on that as well. The only noise I've heard about US charges are recent, and come from the Trump Admin. Obama took a hands-off approach.
It was and remains easy to miss with the years of misinformation and disinformation. The first prosecutor was Eva Finne. She investigated, found nothing, and dropped the case. Assange asked if he could leave the country, got permission, and left for the UK. Shortly afterward, Marianne Ny, the weird prosecutor, jumped in, reopened the case, declared that Assange was wanted for questioning, and issued an Interpol red alert to have him arrested. Sweden will often visit people to question them if they can't come to Sweden or even, if I recall correctly, do a phone interview. Assange has offered this since the beginning and the Swedish government has pretended it can't hear him on either option. Assange has also offered to go to Sweden if they guarantee that he will not be turned over for extradition to the US. The Swedish government has refused to make that guarantee.
The red alert was issued without any accompanying charges, which is a very unusual and perhaps unique. A lot of well-respected, big names have been backing him, though the mainstream media either ignores him or spreads debunked lies.
Now that Sweden's second prosecutor has more or less paused their case, there is just the UK to deal with. Again, there are no guarantees from the British government that once the Ecuadoreans frog march him to the door, the Brits won't just hand him over to the US before he gets to the curb. Even Paul Craig Roberts goes into some of the background about why the US is after him [paulcraigroberts.org]. I figure if nothing changes in the near future, he'll probably just be stuffed into a sack while still on the front steps and driven off in a van and then we won't see or hear of him for a year or two until some sort of mock trial occurs. That's not a done deal however and the British can still come out of this looking good, if they change their tune.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 23 2018, @06:21PM (6 children)
I never heard about a special prosecutor appointment (and a quick search doesn't return anything) so [CITATION NEEDED] on that as well.
So...uh....any plan to provide a citation on the claim that a US special prosecutor was appointed?
That's an odd line to quote as a preface to a long post about UK and Swedish prosecutors.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 23 2018, @06:31PM (2 children)
No one made any claim that a US special prosecutor was assigned to any case in Sweden. I don't know where you got that from.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 23 2018, @06:35PM (1 child)
The Swedes dropped the case, but the US got a special prosecutor to pursue those charges anyway.
Oh, I guess you're alleging the US somehow compelled a Swedish prosecutor to pursue the charges? My mistake if so...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 23 2018, @06:39PM
Correct. I guess I phrased that poorly. At the behest of the US, a Swedish prosecutor decided to pursue charges - despite the fact that it wasn't really within her authority to do so.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday July 23 2018, @06:34PM (2 children)
The second Swedish prosecutor was appointed after political intervention. I'd call that special.
In the US, I don't think one has been publicly named but it looks like people are ready once he is captured . All the news on that is from last year:
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 23 2018, @06:42PM (1 child)
The second Swedish prosecutor was appointed after political intervention.
[CITATION NEEDED]
As I mention above I did misunderstand what Runaway was alleging. However, you haven't provided a citation to support the allegation that the US intervened, either.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday July 23 2018, @07:27PM
The intervention is mentioned by John Pilger in the first link. Looking around there is some mention by Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens. However, it is not clear if they are both referring to the same intervention and given the implications of the possible meddling neither Sweden or the US are likely to address the topic in an official manner unless forced. I expect that a FOIA request would be dragged out for years and then, if finally released, redacted six ways from Sunday.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday July 24 2018, @06:19AM
Because it is what you implied in your statement. If you can't express yourself clearly then you can expect people to challenge what you write.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @02:13PM
Ahahahaha! You are a funny man, sir!
Well, seeing as how kvetching about it online isn't going to stop it--it's going to happen--, I look forward to seeing what you have to say when he is extradited to a shithole country that pushes 90% of suspects (including innocents) through "plea bargains" and then has some black sites to give people like Assange some very special treatment.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Monday July 23 2018, @02:57PM (1 child)
So how is Mr. Kim Dotcom doing these days? Or the president of what-was-that-country who was stopped mid-flight in which country in Europe? Is there any quantitative proof that UK/Sweden are substantially better than either NZ or Austira or Spain or Italy?
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday July 24 2018, @01:46AM
America has a lot of clout. Look at how they're treating Canada since they decided to legalize pot. Most countries fold when they get the "nice economy you have there, be a shame if all your exports suddenly have tariffs applied to them" message.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday July 23 2018, @03:06PM (5 children)
All available evidence points to "no". Sweden has since dropped the underlying charges.
The UK and Swedish justice system both gave him a very good reason to distrust them. Specifically, Assange's lawyers offered that Assange go willingly to Sweden for pre-trial questioning in exchange for a promise that Sweden would not turn him over to US custody, and Sweden refused that offer. Assange's lawyers also offered that the pre-trial questioning in question occur in the Ecuador embassy or over video-conferencing, and Sweden took years to agree to that. Given that pattern, it was not unreasonable for Assange to assume that the point of these charges is to get Assange in physical custody and ship him to the US so he can get the Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning treatment of years of torture. All this despite the fact that there's zero evidence that Assange has committed any crime within US jurisdiction.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 23 2018, @04:56PM (4 children)
Has he committed the crime he has been accused of?
All available evidence points to "no". Sweden has since dropped the underlying charges.
There are outstanding charges in the UK for skipping bail. Which is pretty easy to prove he committed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @06:18PM (3 children)
Why not just change it to resisting arrest?
Let's play identity politics. It's my favorite game!
Skipping bail in the absence of any other charge: what the police state is like to white people.
Resisting arrest in the absence of any other charge: what the police state is like to black people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @07:34PM (1 child)
But here in Russia we are all equal. Everyone just get charged with failure to comply with good policeman's lawful demands.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @07:59PM
OMG Russia! That changes everything! Comintern! Stalin! Putin! Election meddling!
*cowers under bedsheets in fear of the Russian election hacking alt-right incels!*
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday July 24 2018, @06:16AM
Because he hasn't resisted arrest. He has broken the terms of his bail conditions. You can't just manufacture charges based on what you imagine would sound more impressive in front of a judge. You have to base charges on the law of the land.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 24 2018, @04:31AM (2 children)
Such a naive child -- to think that "Justice" in America has anything to do with what you did rather than who your friends or enemies are.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday July 24 2018, @08:29AM (1 child)
He's not in America, America aren't attempting to extradite him
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 25 2018, @06:34AM
yeah right.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Monday July 23 2018, @12:07PM (3 children)
The real issue for Assange is what is likely to happen next, taking into account his paranoia and the passage of time and change of US President since he initially decided trying for asylum was his best option. Sweden (a country somewhat notorious for favouring the defendant) still has one outstanding charge of rape on the books, so the UK could possibly extradite him there if the Swedes decide to resurrect the issue, or are pressured into doing so by the US if you subscribe to that conspiracy theory. Only *if* that happens, does the possibility of extradition to the US become an issue. Alternatively, Theresa May is still desperate for post-Brexit trade deals and likely won't hesitate to rubber stamp an extradition to the US if requested - especially given the UK apparently just disavowed the two remaining Daesh "Beatles" and opened them up to the death penalty at trial. Or there's the third option - he does his time for skipping bail, then goes... where? If he's still paranoid over the US, it'll need to be somewhere beyond the reach of US drones/snatch squads, so good luck with that if he's hoping for a decent quality of life. If the US really is gunning for him, then a few years in a Scandinavian prison fighting extradition through the EU courts (which the UK is aiming to opt out of in March 2019) might actually be his best short term option, especially if Sweden's approach to incarceration is as humane as the approach Norway even affords it's mass murderers.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 23 2018, @02:22PM (2 children)
Citation needed. Especially since there never was any allegation of rape. The term "rape" originated with US media, because it was just too damned hard to convey whatever Assange had actually been charged with. The US, and it's media, only understand a very small handful of sexual offenses. Rape, child molestation, sexual assault, and maybe a couple others.
Both "victims" (or, both seductresses, if you will) clearly stated, when asked, that there was no rape. There was only some minor impropriety, revolving around the use of a condom on the mornings after their initial romps in the sack.
If Julian learns nothing else from this, then he should learn to keep a whole box of condoms in his overnight bag.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Monday July 23 2018, @03:04PM
How did Sweden handle the cases against the founders of The Pirate Bay? Yeah, guilty verdicts, in a kangaroo trial. Nope, not seeing any "notorious favoring of defendants" there!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday July 23 2018, @04:40PM
That's not the main reason that the US media turned it into "rape": The point of that was pure character assassination, and peeling away feminists from his base of support.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday July 23 2018, @05:08PM (2 children)
You are arguing apples and oranges.
Of course, if he were to enter a police station and commit an offence (assault then he could expect to be arrested, or at least charged, for doing so.
However, he has been free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy at any time he wished over the last 8 years and face the only charge that he has been accused of - namely, failing to comply with the conditions of his bail. He might claim that he would have been extradited, and he might even be correct in that assumption, but the only charge that still stands is the one that I have quoted. Nobody has produced any evidence that the US has requested his extradition from either Sweden or the UK.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @10:43PM (1 child)
That's a technicality, why would the US bother to make the request when Assange isn't in their custody? It's entirely likely that they haven't made the request as he isn't in their custody and is unlikely to be in their custody any time soon. If he's in their custody, that would be the time when the US government may or may not make the request.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday July 24 2018, @06:14AM
But he was under arrest and kept in home detention before he sought immunity in the embassy. There was no application for extradition from any foreign state.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Monday July 23 2018, @09:47AM (13 children)
That's still a type of confinement. The freedom to leave, in his case, is not much of a freedom, given that it almost certainly entails him being confined again as TFS points out.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Monday July 23 2018, @10:16AM (12 children)
He's been accused of breaking the law. There was enough evidence to arrest him, then release him on bail. Chances are he would be re-arrested for that crime and then not released on bail as he's a flight risk, but that's the same as anyone accused of a crime
The courts then swiftly determine if he's actually broken the law, and he either has, and he gets punished, or he hasn't, and he goes free
Is your assertion is that someone who accused of robbing a bank, who goes into hiding in a cellar for 10 years and refuses to come out, is "confined to the cellar"?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @10:29AM (10 children)
You have no idea what you're tallking about. There was an Europol arrest warrant issued by Sweden, not because Assange was being accused of a crime, but because ostensibly being wanted for "questioning" before the cases proceed further. Both these cases were flimsy allegations of "rape" by feminists, which on closer observation amounted to Assange allegedly not using a condom during next-morning sex and being a general asshole towards women, but not a rapist under the definition the rest of the world would use.
Those cases in Sweden have meanwhile collapsed and they no longer want him. The UK however, now want him on charges of skipping bail... funny how that works huh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @10:54AM (2 children)
If I recall correctly, the charges were "sexual fraud" or similar, not rape.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @04:21PM (1 child)
yeah. "not using a rubber when you said you'd use a rubber". swedish government thinks it has the authority to micromanage the bedroom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @03:37PM
No, it thinks it has the right to enforce verbal contracts, whether they're sexually related or not.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @10:58AM (6 children)
He's a criminal and he's wanted by the authorities. The fact that he's been hiding in the Ecuadoran embassy to avoid arrest makes him look guilty. At this point nothing he can do will make him look innocent in the eyes of the world.
If he acts like a criminal, runs like a criminal and hides like a criminal then he's probably a criminal. Just as a duck.
(Score: 2, Troll) by isostatic on Monday July 23 2018, @11:23AM (5 children)
> He's a criminal and he's wanted by the authorities. The
*suspected* criminal. A European Arrest Warrant allows a suspected criminal to be extradited.
> If he acts like a criminal, runs like a criminal and hides like a criminal then he's probably a criminal. Just as a duck.
Not convinced. He's an egomaniac, maybe he's paranoid (just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid), but that's for the Swedish justice system to determine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @02:36PM (4 children)
You think that's his only crime? Many of the documents Wikileaks published violated a sovereign nation's laws. You may not agree with their laws, or with the fact that they want to charge him, but the facts are the facts.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday July 23 2018, @03:23PM (3 children)
Which doesn't mean jack squat if the publication and the actions leading to their publication occurred outside of that sovereign nation's jurisdiction. What the US is trying to do to Assange is no different, legally speaking, than Saudi Arabia trying to get custody of an American for trial, torture, and/or execution for putting a drawing of Mohammed somewhere on the Internet.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @04:25PM
False equivalency. Try again.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Monday July 23 2018, @04:44PM
Saudi Arabia is a country founded on the twin principles of Royal sovereignty in the secular realm, and Wahab state religion. So it actually makes sense for them to want to torture someone for drawing a cartoon of their prophet, internally at least, however little sense it makes from the outside you can see it's fundamentally consistent internally.
The USA is a country that supposedly cares so much for freedom of speech, association, the free press etc. that we enshrined them in our Constitution! Yet we're attempting to prosecute a journalist for publishing material that the embarrassed those abusing public office, which is exactly what a free press is supposed to do! This is not consistent internally, it doesn't make sense at that level.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday July 24 2018, @09:05AM
Which doesn't mean jack squat if the publication and the actions leading to their publication occurred outside of that sovereign nation's jurisdiction
America seems to think that they have global Jurisdiction.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @01:11PM
Do you find bail-skipping whistleblowers as morally reprehensible as bank robbers?
Let me guess -- that's for the courts to judge? How about you earn your nerd card and actually decide for yourself rather than constantly using the legal system as a proxy for ethics.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @10:20AM
"Free" i don't think you use the word correctly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23 2018, @02:29PM