SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Come-out-come-out-wherever-you-are dept.
The United Kingdom told Ecuador in August that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would not be extradited if he left the country's London embassy, where he has lived under asylum since 2012, Ecuador's top government attorney said on Thursday.
[...] Salvador said Ecuador passed on the UK's response to Assange's lawyers, but noted that if Assange stayed in the embassy Ecuador would put new conditions on his stay. "Mr. Assange had a choice between turning himself in to British authorities with those assurances, or staying in the embassy of Ecuador, but given that the asylum had lasted six years with no signs of immediate resolution we were going to place certain rules." Salvador said at a news conference.
[...] The relationship between Assange and Ecuador has grown increasingly tense in the past year. Assange filed a lawsuit in an Ecuadorean court last week claiming the new asylum terms, which require him to pay for medical bills and telephone calls and to clean up after his pet cat, violate his rights.
Previously:
Julian Assange Sues Ecuador for "Violating His Fundamental Rights".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday October 26 2018, @10:39PM (7 children)
Now, has the United States gone on record that under no circumstances would they try an extraordinary rendition on Mr. Assange? As much as I love my country, we opened the door on such a question having to be asked.
(Which has nothing to do with the lawsuit, which I don't have tremendous opinion about other than it makes me wonder if Ecuador really knew what it was biting off because England doesn't recognize diplomatic asylum.) If England isn't worried about extradition to either Sweden or the U.S. (if Sweden dropped the charges how could they extradite?) the easiest way out for them would be for the Queen to guarantee Assange royal pardon in exchange for his coming out. He pleads guilty to jumping bail, he's pardoned, everybody moves on.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday October 27 2018, @01:38AM
Wondering if there is a 7 year statute of limitations on this: he's been in sanctuary for 6 years. Are they trying to force him out before the limitation is up?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Insightful) by canopic jug on Saturday October 27 2018, @06:36AM (5 children)
There were never any charges from Sweden against Assange. He was wanted for questiong about a case that a new, second investigator decided to re-open. It is popular for social media to spread the lie that there were charges, however. So it is a common misunderstanding about the case because that lie really gained traction on social media to the point where the mainstream media often failed to look into the facts and just parroted what they "found" in their social media feeds.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by splodus on Saturday October 27 2018, @08:43PM (3 children)
Do you have a link to something that backs this up?
I have a vague memory too that he was quite willing to be 'questioned' in the embassy, but the Swedish prosecuters refused. Subsequently it turned out that dozens of others had, in fact, been questioned by Swedish officials on UK soil?
It has always seemed to me that, regardless of Asange's 'innocence' - he's had every reason to suspect that he would not be treated fairly if he 'gave himself up'...
(Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Sunday October 28 2018, @04:28AM (2 children)
Yes, but if you spend your time digging through the 2010 articles, before prosecutor Marianne Ny took over and re-opened the case, you are more likely to find accurate material. It may take some effort on your part because the web indexes are quite poor in their ability to sort old articles to the top of any search you might try.
However, teleSUR has a decent summary from John Pilger [telesurtv.net] last year. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention also issued a report two years ago [un.org] covering the facts. Again, there are flat out lies spread on social media and for various reasons mainstream media picks them up and parrots them uncritically. That's part of a feedback loop. The media publish insinuations, the social media interpret the insinuations as fact, then the same media can cherry pick pre-packaged lies from social media. Repeat ad nauseum.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by splodus on Sunday October 28 2018, @10:54AM (1 child)
That's really helpful, thank you!
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Sunday October 28 2018, @11:29AM
Another factor may be the grudges carried by several groups over the fact that Wikileaks played a very critical role in saving, or at least prolonging, Edward Snowden's life. Julian Assange was in charge when Sarah Harrison [vogue.com] helped Snowden hide in and then escape from Sheremetyevo Airport. Without Wikileaks, notably Sarah and Julian among others, he would have been done for then and there.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday October 28 2018, @06:49AM
My understanding is that under the Swedish judicial system, charges can't be laid until after questioning. So the questioning was the first step to laying charges.
Doesn't change the fact that reopening the investigation seemed political and it was weird that they wouldn't question him in the embassy or the UK.