UK Threatening to Storm Ecuador Embassy

Since when does an extradition treaty or its lack stop the Americans from sticking someone on a plane?

Since never. I never heard of the concept of extraordinary rendition until it was all over the papers and tv news like plague on a medieval peasant after the US government went mad with the power that it gave them to get the bad guys. Assange, like it or not, is on that same level as far as the US government are concerned, mainly because he embarrassed the fuck out of them in public, for all the world to see.

Why hasn't the British government gone along with an extradition request and why hasn't the American one made such a request? Simples. Extradition is a dirty word over here since the Gary Mc Kinnon shit storm started flying. There are many of us over here who think that that man should have been tried and sentenced over here for crimes committed (if indeed there were any committed at all) in this country instead of being handed over to the Americans for, guess what, embarrassing the fuck out of them in public, for all the world to see.

Extraditing Assange on an official level over here would cause a far worse reaction because his profile is much higher.

I think the concern isn't him being flown to Sweden where he might then be extradited to the US. The concern, I believe, is that he'd get stuck in chains, black-hooded and sent to a secret CIA detention facility, never to be heard of again. Then maybe slap on some child porn charges, a few more rape charges and bam, who wants to protect a child-molesting porn-guzzling rapist?

It's pretty easy to smear his name.

As for what he is alleged to have done, I do not believe there was any indication of anything forceful. It was something to do about a condom with one woman, breaking during sex or something and for the other I'm less clear. He had consensual sex with both, this was admitted, and it was something during both sexual encounters that the women felt they would slap sexual assault allegations (not rape) against him. But it wasn't anything about forcefully holding anybody down.

Now, if the women did make this crap up and were paid to do this, that'd be even worse. But as far as the sexual assault allegations go, not a thing has been done about them. If you don't like Assange, you'll be up in arms about how Ecuador is protecting a "rapist". That is what those charges do. It's not dissimilar to China accusing people of corruption, tax evasion and so on and then go, "Why are you protecting a criminal who has committed financial crimes?". Financial crimes by officials are quite common in China, so how can you ever tell when they are real and when they are not?

Likewise, men in power commit a lot of sexual assault, so why not charge ones you don't like with that? It's nearly impossible to tell which is real and which is not.

edited 18th Aug '12 12:51:18 PM by breadloaf

The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality really, really bothers me. The kinds of machinations Assange exposed on a regular basis were far worse than smoking out a controversial figure with sketchy charges. Saying he has nothing to fear if he's innocent strikes me as laughably naive.

Eh, I don't really like Assange. Regardless of whether he's guilty or innocent of rape, he did expose some pretty sensitive information and from what I heard put people's lives in danger. I don't think he deserves to be whisked away to some secret prison. I also don't think he should be able to just walk away.

Really, isn't there some kind of happy medium here? Maybe Assange serves twelve years for treason in the states then gets released?

Maybe I don't know the whole story, but the story I have heard doesn't sound very good.

edited 18th Aug '12 1:47:39 PM by TheProffesor

How does an Australian commit treason against the United States?

True dat. Then again, they may invent a new charge of suborning treason or something like that. If it doesn't already exist.

I wouldn't rule it out. Christ, they've already tried to have him declared a terrorist (if ever there was proof of how dangerously weaponised that word risks becoming) and openly called for his assassination.

Maybe his full name is Julian Guevara Castro Bin Laden Benedict Arnold Assange or something...

Actually, I'm not sure that he wouldn't already be in some CIA facility somewhere if he was unlucky enough to be dark-skinned and have a vaguely terrorist-sounding name...

edited 18th Aug '12 2:03:29 PM by TheBatPencil

Assange has endangered many lives with the information that he has revealed.

Human decency demands that he be locked up before he can do more bad things.

Asylum or no, I'll be glad when he's rotting in a cell.

edited 18th Aug '12 2:04:09 PM by ATC

Human decency? Heh. Heh. Heh.

Human decency demands that you do not use the Chain Gun on your Apache to gun down unarmed civilians and then lie about it. And bitch about it when you get found out. As the Americans have never ceased doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qWADMfQnQ

Aw, we're never allowed to have any fun!

Oh, I was unaware of such atrocities.

Is there any way we can stop such atrocities from occurring?

that's just sickening what the Americans are doing.

@ATC: You can't stop it if it's not being exposed.

That's what Wikileaks is doing; showing the world what their governments are doing behind their backs.

We wouldn't even know that had happened if Wikileaks hadn't published it.

Oh, in that case, We should allow wikileaks, but someone other than Assange should run it. Dude is giving the enemies of Wikileaks a cause to justify dismantling his site.

Assange isn't running it.

He's a spokesman.

He goes out and gives talks.

He isn't in charge of the site at all.

And, in some respects at least, a decoy. He gets all the shit, not the site.

I find it funny a lot of the time when people say that the information he exposed endangers people without actually knowing what information he exposed. Horrible things happen all the time around the world and I think that he essentially is doing good by bringing things to light. The US military in particular needs to stop being glorified so much in media and in common culture and the heinous things that people under the guise of the military do need to be brought to public attention.

This however, is independent from his current charges- if they are substantial. I don't believe in these whacky conspiracy theories but it would not surprise me in the slightest if the seemingly-panicked reaction from the US and other countries is a result of them not wanting their nasty little secrets unveiled.

I'm skeptical of the sexual assault charges - a condom breaking counts as assault, really? Seems like you have to have pretty specific circumstances for that to hold up in court, not to mention you have to prove intent.

So while I don't necessarily like the guy, I'd rather that if he gets busted it be for something he did, rather than didn't do.

The thing that bothers me about this. Is his arguement for not being extradited to sweden is the U.S. would get him. He would instead end up in easy reach of the U.S. In the North Western area of South American Continent right by the sea. You know areas we frequently operate in. We also have shit loads of U.S. Spooks crawling all over South America plus Special Operations training centers in South America for Jungle warfare.

South America does not strike me as a safe place to be if your trying to evade the U.S. government especially when they have lately shown how many fucks they don't give about a nations soverignty when it comes to nabbing or killing people on their naughty list.

If America wanted him badly he would then be lacking the protection the various European nations grant him. He is honestly safer in Europe then in South America. Even if he is in chains in Sweden he would be safer there then in Ecuador.

The thing that really bugs me is the whole "condom" issue. It's either the condom broke, or he didn't use one. One is a cause of sexual assault, the other is an error that happens sometimes.

Sexual assault and rape are not exactly the same. Rape is a form of sexual assault, but not all sexual assault is rape; technically, pinching your secretary's ass is counted as sexual assault. How would you feel if your boss was accused of full-blown rape because he pinched his secretary's ass?

I'm aware it's 2 completely different ballparks, but it's the same game. While Wikileaks has screwed up a little in the past, it's done more to expose the USA's dickery than just about anyone else in the 21st century. For that, I'm pro-Assange and pro-Wikileaks. While he should be punished if he didn't use a condom, he shouldn't have to be dragged through all this shit, accused of full blown rape. Fuck that shit.

I am not sure how the laws work in Sweden to be honest.

edited 18th Aug '12 11:46:34 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I'll repost the case details.

His speech http://storify.com/shawncarrie/julian-assange-speaks-in-london?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_i51J&utm_campaign=&utm_content=storify-pingback

Also Wikileaks discovered American soldiers in Afghanistan protecting corrupt police officials who were running a child sex trafficking scheme. Then the memo indicated that US soldiers were directed to "silence" the journalist who discovered it. I don't know what they meant by silence. Human decency?

And really my problem with the sexual assault allegations (you have to stop calling it rape, rape != sexual assault, I realise America doesn't have that charge but it's huge difference and is a mark of a major progressive step in protecting people, especially women) is that they are vague enough to basically mean anything and it's unclear what is going on. Basically it's impossible to ever say what the two women said was false, so they can never be tried for perjury but that's not the real problem. It's that Swedish police don't seem to have put forth any effort into figuring out whether the allegations are even true. Other than the two statements by the two women, there's basically nothing.

The reason why they were ridiculed for being US puppets though was because they had spoke with one another before going to the police, had zero indication of anything being a matter in the time period in question, continued to act very friendly toward Assange in that period even after the supposed time periods that the crime took place and even communicated with people about the consensual sex.

Let me also remind people, the case got CLOSED. It was reopened later after a politician stepped in. That's an important component to me.

Assange speech video.

...

I don't know what to think. All I know is that I've come round 100% behind the idea of backing the hell away from that embassy. As far as I'm concerned this is now between the Swedes and the Ecuadorians.

edited 19th Aug '12 2:08:53 PM by GameChainsaw

The way the news makes it out, he most certainly put a few peoples' lives in danger. The news could be wrong, but if they are right there is an issue. Is there anyway he could have "exposed" this stuff without putting anyone at risk of being killed?

Wikileaks treads a thin line. Step to the right, and you're not uncovering anything at all. Step to the left, and you risk being accused of terrorism.

They must have known that they were going to make enemies when they leaked the info. If they aren't willing to finish what they started, then they shouldn't have started it at all.

I guess it really comes down to what is more important: Covering things up or getting them into the open. Some things need to be seen, but others should stay private. It's tough to decide which is more important in some cases.

Accountability is an integral part of the USA political system. There needs to be a way of doing it without all of this happening. I neither condemn or condone the actions of the USA because I don't know the full story. I stand the same with Assange. I don't know everything about the situation, but I do know this: Right or wrong, you need to be willing to face the heat if you make an enemy of the US government.

Perhaps you guys could enlighten me on what else there is to all of this if you know.

edited 19th Aug '12 4:18:37 PM by TheProffesor