If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.
Or he is someone who flees from serious charges and the British authorities don’t want to look like idiots in front of the whole world because they can’t do something simple like extradite him.
Why is there this willingness to believe everything this idiot says? He’s a pompous ass, pure and simple. No conspiracy required.
Meanwhile the idea of an anonymous leaks platform dies because everyone focuses on his stupid antics.
Lets take into account that invading an embassy is a rare occurrence (happened once that I know of), that it's largely regarded as somewhat hostile towards the nation that owns that embassy and the whole "bad precedent" thing.
Being afraid of "looking like idiots" doesn't seem like a very plausible explanation for invading an embassy.
I doubt the rest of the world would think British authorities were incompetent for wanting to avoid an international incident. Nor is forcing an embassy to release an asylum seeker something "simple".
I doubt that Assange being a "pompous ass" is what's killing the anonymous leaks platform idea. Rather I would say that the relentless pursuit of everyone involved in such leaks and their infrastructure as well as lack of support from traditional media are probably to blame for it.
It is the old, "I do not know this person, but I intensely dislike them as a person. I feel this has great relevance to all legal matters concerning this person" routine. It it commonly seen in discussions about Assange and Dotcom.
Maybe they are misguided. But the publicity of this whole thing makes their (possible?) overreaction completely explainable without any conspiracy theories.
It could always be both. Assange is probably persona non grata to the British authorities, but even if you wanted to manufacture some cause to imprison him, you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden. At most, the British authorities are reacting opportunistically to an otherwise valid, legitimate charge.
> you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden
If you want to go after someone's reputation, a rape charge is perfect -- repugnant and requires no hard evidence, especially in Sweden. The only thing better would be an allegation without a formal charge... Though sure, there are more plausible explanations.
Sexual assualt charges have ludicrously low conviction rates (rapes especially), they are usually a he said, she said affair unless there's a significant degree of violence. Going down a peso route would be a lot easier, lower burden of proof... And evidence that can be fabricated without bringing a victim or witness to court.
Secondly, if the us wanted assagne they'd have him, shifting to Ecuador is probably a lot less safe than hanging around an EU country IMO
Thirdly, he had his chance to go back to Sweden, he ran. He had his chance in the uk, he ran. He's not showing him self to be of good character if the acts of abuse of process he claims to stand against are being carried out by himself
Guilty or not, he's got questions to ask. Running away isn't going to make his issues disappear
And lets not forget, sexual assault is a serious allegation, and if you had any sense about you, someone lying about using protection would really piss you off. Apart from the fact it means putting a woman at risk of having to look after a brat for 18 years plus incubation, there's also the risk of disease, complication through pregnancy and common flipping curtosey.
even if you wanted to manufacture some cause to imprison him, you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden
I would absolutely go for something like that, if I were clever enough to think of it. Look at how effectively it's split his support on the left by pitting civil libertarians against feminists, even on this thread.
There's been a complaint filed against the Swedish prosecutor over this case by third parties (two journalists) alleging judicial misconduct and serious breaches of Swedish law over amongst others her insistent refusal to send anyone to the UK to interview Assange, so it remains to be seem just how valid and legitimate this whole thing is.
Fact: he has not been accused of rape. He has not been charged with rape. There is no trial. There are no charges. And there are no witnesses, and no physical evidence.
And if you read up on the details of the story, and the context, it's very fishy. It's at best a case of he-said vs she-said --- arguably one of the perfect ways to smear someone's reputation and cause them legal and financial hassle, without having to meet the minimum legal standards to convict someone of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Men and women have sex ALL the time, 24/7, all across the world, in all sorts of complex ways, variations, situations, and very often without condoms. It's also a fact that a large percentage of women like men to be dominant with them and it arouses them.
Given all these facts, and this cultural context, it's hard to know exactly what happened behind closed doors in these incidents, and before the legal system ruins a man's life they need to be damn sure they're doing the right thing. From just what's known publicly so far this case looks so flaky and muddled and suspicious that a reasonable person could easily say those standards aren't met here.
I must admit that I'm confused. The Wikipedia page says he's been accused of rape:
"In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in relation to allegations of rape and sexual assault by two women in Sweden"
That seems to imply that an attorney was able to present sufficient evidence to a court to merit an arrest warrant being issued. I don't know the facts of the case in depth, but you seem to be asserting that European Arrest Warrants are issued capriciously, with no regard for due process. That would seem to be far more worrying that the specifics of this case.
>> There is no trial. There are no charges.
At least in the US, those typically come after the suspect is apprehended (and not in that order). Perhaps it's different in European courts. But I was not aware that trials in absentia were the norm there.
The UK has a legal obligation to hand him over to Sweden per treaty. If they are to follow the law, rather than just make stuff up as they go along like a banana republic, then the legal apparatus in the UK has no discretion under which they can allow Assange to leave.
I would use the same terms to describe any fugitive on the run from rape charges. What on earth does Sweden have to gain or lose from this? This is just conspiracy theory.
Because whether he is charged or not, found innocent our guilty if charged or let go, it's certain that he will then be extradited to the USA where he has already been found guilty of crimes that actually aren't crimes due to his nationality and status as a journalist.
Sounds like pretty extenuating circumstances for a Swedish investigator to go to Britain to me, unless there's an actual law that says he MUST be questioned in Sweden
Why shouldn't it happen in Sweden? If they have the legal power to arrest him and question him, why should they bend over backwards and do it his way instead?
Somewhat, which is why I never weighed in on it before. But if the UK is threatening something as unusual as invading an embassy, that is evidence that there is likely to be something more to the issue.
No. I remember a situation, though no longer the details, where someone was accused of spying during the Cold War and fled to an embassy. He was effectively trapped there, just like Assange, but whoever was after him didn't violate the embassy. Like I said, I can't remember the details, not even the country involved, but I think he ended up spending several years confined to the embassy.
Well the victim of espionage is the state, and the state has nothing to gain by imprisoning the spy themselves rather than letting the spy imprison himself in a foreign embassy. With rape, there's an actual victim.
If Britain does this, then from now on every Chinese dissident that seeks refuge in a Western embassy will somehow magically find themselves charged with rape, and Chinese police will stand ready to enter to arrest him for said rape.
(Substitute China for any other dictatorship as you please)
It is an incredibly bad precedent to set, and I very much doubt they will go there.
Leaving police posted outside until people get bored of the whole thing, sure. Sending stern letters, sure. Calling the Ecuadorian embassy in to explain himself, sure. Maybe a few more things. Maybe even expelling some low level staff if things get really nasty.
But if they enter the embassy, then either someone is a complete idiot and haven't thought through consequences, or Assanges suspicions about US involvement suddenly becomes a lot more credible.
Let me get this straight--a citizen of Australia is a "dissident" against the United States, so the US government arranges for him to be accused of rape in Sweden, leading him to refuse to surrender to British police and hide in the Ecuadorian embassy.
If the British enter the Ecuadorian embassy to extradite Assange to Sweden, this sets a precedent for the Chinese government to enter embassies in China to arrest Chinese dissidents accused of rape in China? No, because in the case of Assange, the idea that he's some kind of political prisoner subject to a CIA plot lies somewhere between conspiracy theory and delusion of grandeur, while in the case of Chinese dissidents, it would be plainly transparent what China was trying to do.
Plus, it turns out that China gets their dissidents to stop hiding out in western embassies by threatening to beat their wives to death. Dictatorships are much more direct than you give them credit for: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/world/asia/chen-guangcheng...
Facts: he has NOT been accused of rape. He has not been charged with rape. The two women in question have not accused him of rape or described the incidents in question as rape. There is no trial. There are no charges. And at best this is a case of he-said/she-said, with no other witnesses or evidence --- which is a situation that can be physically consistent with a framing, and thus, especially the surrounding context, needs to be treated with extreme skepticism.
To throw out just a few data points of context: the US government has a history of violating international law, violating the sovereignty of other nations, and, most recently, of violating it's own Constitution. Also consider Gitmo. And consider how Bradley Manning was treated while in custody, before/without trial, before/without even charges.
According to Wikipedia he is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (this is presumably why he's hiding in a non-EU embassy).
Edit: arrest warrants don't always/usually imply that any charges have been filed. This is not unusual. The unusual part is a person accused of rape hiding out in the embassy of a country of which he is not a citizen, in a country of which he is not a citizen, while people cheer him on for being righteous.
I think you're conflating "charged" with "accused". As I understand it, two women have accused him of nonconsensual sex acts (we call that "rape"). He has not been formally charged with rape yet (because he's on the lam).
I really recommend you read the source/upstream material before making claims like that. First of all, the women have not accused him of rape. At worst, of having intercourse without a condom, against someone's momentary preference. With women who otherwise already willingly went to bed with him and became sexual partners with him. Neither woman wants charges against him. The documented reason why they approached the police originally was just to learn if he could be compelled to have an STD test performed. That's it. Also the original prosecutor who looked at it decided there wasn't anything to pursue, and not enough evidence to convict on anything. If you look at all the details of the case, and I mean ALL the details and context, I think there is only one of a few things that probably happened: either (1) it was a frame-up that the women were in on, or (2) it was not a frame-up by the women, not intentionally, they were honest, but some particular party in the Swedish government or law enforcement decided to "make hay" out of this as much as they could to hurt or impede Assange. Either of those scenarios seem to be the most consistent with everything known and observed to date.
Also I'm sure there have been millions if not billions of incidents of sex across the world, to date, if not happening again every day, where one or both participants preferred, either beforehand, or during, or afterward, that a condom was used, even though it wasn't, and in 99.99% of those cases nobody considers it "rape". At most, a non-ideal incident, a risky event, or something to get angry about with one's partner, in private. But I'm sure it's a very common occurrence, both between singles and married couples, and in the vast majority of cases it doesn't turn into claims of rape or major international diplomatic incidents. It's just one of those life oopsies. I bet a lot of children were brought into this world because of this kind of oopsie, however non-ideal. Regardless, it's a fact that they went to bed with him willingly. It's a fact that neither appeared distraught or made any complaints about it to friends afterward. It's a fact that there were no signs of violence or physical harm. Also it's a fact that a large percentage of women fantasize about dominant men, sexually. Is it possible that in this case Assange was too aggressive and insensitive? Absolutely! And who's business should that be? At most, Assange and these two other individuals. Period. End of story. And ultimately, those are the only people who really know, for sure, what really happened, and how it happened. The rest is spectacle and fodder for speculation and diplomatic warfare.
You honestly think it's easier to extradite someone to the states from Sweden as opposed to the UK? I would kindly suggest that you yourself should consider thinking this through.
If the endgame was to extradite Assange to the United States, why go through Sweden? Wouldn't it be easier just to extradite him directly from the UK to the US? It doesn't make any sense.
Because as close an ally as the UK is, the UK government likes to think of themselves as a partner and don't like to be bossed around or involved in too shady stuff, and UK courts certainly don't like to be meddled with.
Meanwhile, Sweden has a history of cooperating with the US on illegal renditions in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, to the point where Sweden has actually paid damages to at least one person - Muhammad al-Zery - who was tortured after Swedish police had handed him over to masked CIA officers at a Swedish airport and witnessed as he was stripped, drugged, chained and handcuffed and loaded on a plane to be flown to Egypt where he was tortured.
Said person was in Sweden applying for political asylum.
It caused diplomatic incidents when it was first revealed to the public and Swedish authorities "put a stop to it". Then shortly afterwards, Swedish military intelligence uncovered that it was still ongoing with the knowledge of airport personnel. At least officially without the knowledge of the Swedish government.
Maybe they've stopped now. Or maybe the units that participated in it are just better at hiding it, or maybe the US government is just better at making sure said Swedish government units have better reasons to deny knowledge.
But the fact remains that for sveral years, the US extracted prisoners from and/or transported prisoners through Sweden illegally to hand them over to regimes that would carry out torture in violation of both US and Swedish law and international treaties, with the complicit knowledge of the Swedish government.
It's quite possible the UK did too. But which government do you think the US cares the least about jerking around?
The problem with the Swedish police and legal system is seldom that they do bad things. The problem is rather that the employees doesn't get much done except drink coffee and administrate.
There is another possibility: Theoretically, both the women might be paid by CIA when Assange is extradited for questioning. But that is just another stupid conspiracy theory.
Edit: Clarity.
Edit 2: It is hard to take the arguments seriously, since Assange originally went to Sweden voluntarily without fearing extradition to USA. Wikileaks should just get a saner guy as front figure.
