Britain threatens to storm Ecuador embassy to get Assange

Just been thinking about the "he wont be extradited to the USA if it is to face the death penalty" claim that people are posting in here.
Can I just throw this scenario into the pot for consideration....

1. Assange gets extradited to sweden to answer their questions.
2. USA has not yet stated they intend to get assange extradited with anything that carries the death penalty.
3. USA requests extradition of assange on a lesser charge, not connected, that does not impose death penalty
4. Once they get their hands on him, they then decide to tey him with something thay DOES include death penalty as the punishment. Result for USA.

Since when has extradition and death penalty been of any concern to USA when they can go into any country, snatch suspects, and ship them to gitmo?

I for one do feel assange has genuine concerns, and when america refuses to state their intentions, and sweden refuses to give reasurances, then it is pretty obvious what is going to happen.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by JacKatMtn

 

Protect him Ecuador.

Given questions were already raised over the validity of the womens claims only for those 'questions' to be hushed up quicker than Road Runner means I side with Assange, plus he's an Aussie!!!!

Poor US Government, Waah Waah we got caught red-handed murdering innocent civilians and bagging on other countries. Lets hang him out to dry to show the world we're bullies and free speech against us ISN'T ALLOWED....no matter how much we promote it.

Thats what this is all about. Trumped of "rape" charges, just to get him extradited to the US so they can lock him up in a heavily controlled [if not illegal] prison in say........Guantanamo Bay ???
All he did was expose what corrupt Governments were up to and what they were saying behind others backs. And like most back-stabbers, they don't like it when their words are exposed. And just to show how immature and petty those Government officials are, rather than just cop it on the chin, they get all pissed off and try to use their position in society to bring anyone down who exposes their lies, cover-ups, and/or corruption.
If he was just going to Sweden to answer to the rape charges, then the US would have no interest in the case. Its such an obvious case of a made up rape case to try and get him to Sweden to then get him extradited to the US.
Another poster asked the question earlier, "why hasn't he just been shot by a black-ops yet ?", and to answer that I'd say because you can't give the impression of people having free speech and then go anround killing every person who use's that 'free speech' because there goes the impression of having free speech. And why kill someone straight away and make it obvious, when you can make up a rape case, get him sent ot a country that then allows him to be sent to the US ?
It's alot easier to have someone seem to kill their own career and credibilty, then fire the bullet yourself. And when that persons career and credibilty is ruined, then they are no longer seen as a threat, but if the threat becomes too large, then you can be sure the next step will be a black-ops bullet. Why do you think the British Government is making these threats to storm the embassy ? Its because they are running out of options to ruin his career, so the next step is to 'take him out'. If they can't get Assange to the US, then they will get their hired goons to get him, one way or another !
And why should he be extradited to the US, if all he did wrong was to expose others lies, back-stabbing and corruption ?
That's NOT a crime, thats the ultimate definition of free speech. But free speech as we know it is a created myth, and those that created the myth don't want us to know it is just a myth, so we all go on continuing to live the lie, and contributing to it by not speaking out, or by not defending people that do !

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Popcorn time...

I don't think so.

“Any transgression against the sanctity of the embassy is a unilateral and shameful act, and a violation of the Vienna Convention, which protects embassies worldwide.” “This threat is designed to preempt Ecuador’s imminent decision on whether it will grant Julian Assange political asylum, and to bully Ecuador into a decision that is agreeable to the United Kingdom and its allies.”

So the Vienna convention does only apply to embassies of the US and their allies?
Invading an embassy is an act of war.

Originally posted by miniatus
3. Would Assange be extradited to the US by Sweden if he were apprehended and stood trial there?

Absolutely not.. it is against international law for Sweden to extradite someone to a country where they face a death penalty .. therefore Assange would not and could not be extradited to the USA unless the USA guaranteed that Assange would not face such a penalty ... since he would no doubt be tried for treason and since treason carries the penalty of death.. Sweden cannot do it... and the US has made no such requests, at least not to the public.

Sweden has done it in the past. Not to the USA, but to other countries. They have either received guarantees, or just "deemed" that there was no danger and sent the person across. Then they got killed. Sweden's response has always been either silence, "oops" or "at the time of making the decision there was no danger".

Sweden trust the USA more and thus would find it even easier to extradite him there.

Originally posted by Xertious
reply to post by moniker

 

The UK hasn't created a law that clashes with the vienna convention, where did you get that idea from?

Actually... from reading the law.

Originally posted by Terminal1
I think people need to find out the Sweden Connection in all this.

From what I hear, he had consensual sex with a woman and his rubber broke. She requested him get an HIV test and he refused which is sexual assault and battery according to Swedish law, or so I have read or termed rape in an overarching sense.

I mean, I would feel more sympathy if he had actually forced himself on someone but because a rubber broke we now have standoffs with international implications is just straight up madness.

Or am I wrong on this?

That's a quite good summary.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by moniker

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Jargonaut

 

Technically, the USG has a valid claim and a valid point. Assange is not only guilty of violating U.S. secrecy laws but still holds material of a National Security nature that would be of imminent threat if released.....OR...so the argument can sure be made.

I have 0 sympathy to the Government's claim, but I certainly will admit they have one. Hmmmm....

You appear to say that US laws should apply worldwide, for any national.

In the same sense the USA have no right for him possibly breaking US laws as an Australian citizen, working outside the USA.

edit on 16/8/2012 by moniker because: (no reason given)

Actually, the US does have the right to ask for and chase any national, word wide, for crimes against America. So does ANY nation. The difference comes in for what other nations are willing to allow or tolerate.

If Fiji is after a corrupt business owner, not many nations will help...even with a treaty. If the US or Australia is hunting a corrupt business owner, odds are that the nation holding they guy will cough him up if it;s important enough to make a fuss over.

So... Yeah, America has every right. At the same time every OTHER nation has the right to say No. Someone isn't even considering a No answer here. That is the problem and I DO support Assange at this point.

The difference is that Fuji would most likely only ask for said businessman if he had committed said crimes while in Fiji, and especially if he was a citizen of Fiji.

reply to post by moniker

I didn't say I liked what the US was doing or that I really think it's right ethically or just in any sense of fairness as we're constantly saying we're all about in public.

The question was simply DO they have a claim. Yes. The United States absolutely has a valid claim and under international law and treaty, on a strictly factual basis, they absolutely DO have the right to pursue anyone guilty of American violations of law........to the extent the host nation permits or agrees to it.

From Jargonaut's post (what I've been replying to)

The whole thing is so blatantly in our faces corrupt on the part of the US gov it's an insult and so spineless on the part of the UK gov it's embarrassing.

The law is the law and the fact it IS being followed is the opposite of corruption. I don't like it, but that isn't the question.

It also mentions Coercion for the United Kingdom?? How would that play into anything? Assange's releases burned U.K. secrets as well as the U.S. and those who followed Wiki-leaks well before it became a household name know he was an equal opportunity 'reporter'. ....the UK almost certainly has their own hard feelings and no warm concerns toward what ultimately happens to Assange.

Originally posted by UDHR19
So the Vienna convention does only apply to embassies of the US and their allies?
Invading an embassy is an act of war.

Invading an embassy is not an act of war.

To be clear and to introduce some accuracy into this thread.

What the UK has said is essentially Assange cannot stay indefinitely in the Ecuadorian embassy because the UK could legally revoke the status of the embassy and then arrest him.

... the Foreign Office told Ecuador that it had the power to revoke the embassy's diplomatic status under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. This act was passed by Parliament in the wake of the Libyan embassy crisis three years before, when PC Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead from inside the embassy.

#

Source www.guardian.co.uk...

This would open another legal process with all the checks and balances that are part of the English legal system. However, by pointing this out the UK authorities are telling Ecuador that Assange is not safe indefinitely. It is a political pressure which puts the ball in Ecuador’s court.

This is just a diversion from the fact that Assange is wanted for questioning on serious sex crimes. Those who think that rape is unimportant are not women. Assange needs to face his accusers and get this cleared up. If he is charged and it gets to court we will all be able to see the details – is it this that Assange really fears?

www.guardian.co.uk...

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


Rape in this case is a term stretched to and right on past the breaking point. Rape? No, it's not unimportant in the sense I know it defined in any western way. It's among the worst crimes anyone can commit against another person. They just have a REAL weird definition of rape here.

If there is no proof of force or threat of force, the judges will consider the intent of the perpetrator. In practice this leads to many cases of ’word against word’ in which the man will have to prove his innocence. This reverses the burden of proof that is basic to criminal trials in Western legal systems, in which the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Gee.. Why would he possibly be worried? We should all feel fine about proving our innocence. But he's a rapist right? What does that term do for a mental image?

The fact that the sex was consensual in all of the events is not disputed. One of the complainants, AA (Expressen, 21 August 2011), stated that both she and SW had consensual sex with Assange.

Complainant AA’s statements to the tabloid Aftonbladet (21 August 2010) also deny criminal intent on Assange’s side or threat/use of force. According to complainant AA:

"It is completely false that we are afraid of Assange and therefore didn’t want to file a complaint. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him." - Complainant AA

So what *IS* rape in this case?

"Sweden’s definition of legal rape includes the idea of ’unlawful coercion’, which involves exerting emotional pressure on someone to have sex. In other words, talking someone into bed. A man in Assange’s position of wealth and power would be particularly vulnerable to this form of ’rape’, which carries a possible four-year sentence, because it could be argued that his status allowed him to exert an inordinate level of influence.

Source

If that is the "rape" Julian Assange is being hunted like a mastermind criminal for, then he's about as guilty as any American man who has spun a good yarn and told a few tall tales to get a woman into bed at the end of an evening. That's quite literally how that reads for what he did. He's a Liar. ...umm... He's male. So?

Originally posted by djyorkie
Just been thinking about the "he wont be extradited to the USA if it is to face the death penalty" claim that people are posting in here.
Can I just throw this scenario into the pot for consideration....

1. Assange gets extradited to sweden to answer their questions.
2. USA has not yet stated they intend to get assange extradited with anything that carries the death penalty.
3. USA requests extradition of assange on a lesser charge, not connected, that does not impose death penalty
4. Once they get their hands on him, they then decide to tey him with something thay DOES include death penalty as the punishment. Result for USA.

Since when has extradition and death penalty been of any concern to USA when they can go into any country, snatch suspects, and ship them to gitmo?

I for one do feel assange has genuine concerns, and when america refuses to state their intentions, and sweden refuses to give reasurances, then it is pretty obvious what is going to happen.

This is what i see out of this, the entire south american union kicking (all british bankers and oil maybe more)out of south america and that is good news

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Rape is rape and regardless of the interpretation in Swedish law, there is a victim. I agree crimes in the bedroom are often word against word and highly complicated.

The point is that Assange needs to face his accusers and Swedish law and process be allowed to run its course. Everything else is a distraction and Assange is playing to the gallery.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi

I'm sure the Soviets felt just as strongly about the defectors they chased right to the gates of Western Embassies on charges intended to send them into the Gulags. I know the US managed to get a few out of East Germany who were also being chased on 'charges' of one sort or another.

Now... we have a victim here who freely says there was no threat, there was no violence..there was not even the word 'no'. In fact, SHE says, herself it would appear, it was 100% consensual... Hmmm... He just wasn't as honest as she'd have liked.

Well funny that coming up right after he became Public Enemy number #1 to the United States Government and they weren't having any luck getting him.... Personally.. I think they are B.S. charges and even calling that rape is a slap across the face to every victim of ACTUAL rape in the world.

Run Julian Run! I hope he gets clear and then drops the key into the public domain to nuke them all as he leaves. ..just my humble thoughts.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by paraphi

 

Rape in this case is a term stretched to and right on past the breaking point. Rape? No, it's not unimportant in the sense I know it defined in any western way. It's among the worst crimes anyone can commit against another person. They just have a REAL weird definition of rape here.

If there is no proof of force or threat of force, the judges will consider the intent of the perpetrator. In practice this leads to many cases of ’word against word’ in which the man will have to prove his innocence. This reverses the burden of proof that is basic to criminal trials in Western legal systems, in which the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Gee.. Why would he possibly be worried? We should all feel fine about proving our innocence. But he's a rapist right? What does that term do for a mental image?

The fact that the sex was consensual in all of the events is not disputed. One of the complainants, AA (Expressen, 21 August 2011), stated that both she and SW had consensual sex with Assange.

Complainant AA’s statements to the tabloid Aftonbladet (21 August 2010) also deny criminal intent on Assange’s side or threat/use of force. According to complainant AA:

"It is completely false that we are afraid of Assange and therefore didn’t want to file a complaint. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him." - Complainant AA

So what *IS* rape in this case?

"Sweden’s definition of legal rape includes the idea of ’unlawful coercion’, which involves exerting emotional pressure on someone to have sex. In other words, talking someone into bed. A man in Assange’s position of wealth and power would be particularly vulnerable to this form of ’rape’, which carries a possible four-year sentence, because it could be argued that his status allowed him to exert an inordinate level of influence.

Source

If that is the "rape" Julian Assange is being hunted like a mastermind criminal for, then he's about as guilty as any American man who has spun a good yarn and told a few tall tales to get a woman into bed at the end of an evening. That's quite literally how that reads for what he did. He's a Liar. ...umm... He's male. So?

edit on 17-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

really imo it happened with money and usa as having him fallowed they paid more money period

The Police/Government should 100% storm the building. Lets not forget the reason here, he is to be questioned regarding serious allegations of rape/sexual abuse....take away the fact that he is the founder of wikileaks. If this was just your run of the mill average joe then there would be no issue.

Hang him I say.

reply to post by youwillneverknow


Im sorry, but did you even read the posts right above yours?
Getting fed up with the repetativeness in threads here.
If you have a read of the posts, and actually find out what the "rape" involves that they wish to ask sone "questions" about, will you still be saying "hang him"?
Just hope you never get into a position of power!!!

Another point to make in this case.
Here is part of an intetview between Russia Today, and a former CIA agent....

RT: According to Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patina, the UK’s acts of aggression, blackmailing, and threats are in direct violation of the 1976 Council of Diplomatic Relations. Do you think that as London and Washington are in cahoots, Ecuador is considered to be meaningless, as it has a small military, and is not a significant economic power?

RM: Well, that has been the attitude. Smaller countries do not really amount to much in Washington or London’s view these days. What will be interesting is to see how much will come out in terms of the real game being played here. Nobody seems to remember that the prime accuser of Julian Assange – Anna Ardin in Sweden – used to work for extreme anti-Castro publications funded by the CIA. So there are links there, and it doesn’t require a conspiratorial attitude to see that the only way they can get at Julian Assange is by trumped-up charges of sexual indiscretions in a country that is hypersensitive to that, and they haven’t even persuaded a judge in Sweden to make those charges.

They have had ample opportunity to go to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and question Julian Assange. They said, ‘we’re not going to do that.' Now, why is that? The reason is, there is no case against Julian Assange. In my opinion, it’s all very transparent. They want to extradite him to Sweden, and then to the United States to suffer the same indignities, the same torture of Bradley Manning – the person who allegedly gave those documents to Julian Assange – has faced. This is a violation of the First Amendment in our country and other amendments in our Bill of Rights, and I dare say that our founding fathers are rolling in their graves to see a [publisher] treated this way in violation of the right to make things known that are otherwise hidden.

source

Hmmmmm, so, all those shouting "rapist" and "hang him"...... Are you still certain of your words?
Are you still classing him as guilty before finding out the facts?
I just wish all those who are anti assange could supply similar links for their accusations, before butting in with a genuine, unbiased point of view.

I just don't understand, with all the news all over it, how would Sweden send him off to the U.S.?

As soon as they did that everyone would know it was witch hunt... as Mr Assange had said all along....

If he is innocent of these charges then why not go and clear your name?

If this was Jo public, running away like he is, then we'd all be shouting guilty......

Isn't he the one trying to spread truth and throw a light on corruption?

He ought to start doing it in his own life and prove, armed with truth, that he is innocent.....

Originally posted by truetrigger
I just don't understand, with all the news all over it, how would Sweden send him off to the U.S.?

As soon as they did that everyone would know it was witch hunt... as Mr Assange had said all along....

If he is innocent of these charges then why not go and clear your name?

If this was Jo public, running away like he is, then we'd all be shouting guilty......

Isn't he the one trying to spread truth and throw a light on corruption?

He ought to start doing it in his own life and prove, armed with truth, that he is innocent.....

As has been mentioned in this thread a few times, and at fear of repeating myself.....
Sweden was offered to come to the embassy to ask their questions... They refused.
Equador offered to send assange to sweden if a deal could be reached, where they promise not to extradite him to the USA..... No deal.
They have been given their chances to ask their questions, and they refuse.
Is it not obvious what the real agenda is here?

Added note... The charges by sweden are not charges... They simply want to adk him questions.
Both offers made to sweden are totally legal

Some words from former ambassador Craig Murray

I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.

source

Does everyone still not believe that America is involved?