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: 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.