Page 1 of 3

Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:13 pm UTC
by Heisenberg
Yahoo wrote:Ecuador's foreign minister announced on Thursday that the country would grant asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, defying threats by the British government to storm the Ecuadorean embassy and extradite Assange to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning in connection with alleged rape and sexual molestation cases.
"We have decided to grant political asylum to him," Ricardo Patino said at the end of a long televised statement from the Ecuadorean capital of Quito, where he criticized the U.S. and U.K. governments for failing to protect Assange from political persecution.
"The countries that have a right to protect Assange have failed him," Patino said. "[Assange] is victim of political persecution ... If Assange is extradited to U.S., he will not receive a fair trial."
...
The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office called Ecuador's decision to grant Assange asylum "regrettable."
"British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden," a spokesman for the office said. "We shall carry out that obligation. The Ecuadorian government's decision this afternoon does not change that."
Moments before the announcement, Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa tweeted: "No one is going to terrorize us!"
It's unclear what will happen to Assange now. U.K. authorities say his asylum is a violation of his probation--and there is reason to believe he would be arrested if he tried to leave the embassy. "Assange is going to Sweden," Louise Mensch, a conservative member of the British Parliament, tweeted. "We are going to extradite him there. That's it and that's all. #rape"
Assange fears if he was extradited to Sweden, he would immediately be extradited to the United States, which has condemned WikiLeaks' publication of classified documents. Assange and his supporters say the U.S. would charge him with espionage; the U.S. has not said whether or not it would pursue charges against him.
On Wednesday, Patino said he received a "clear and written" threat from British authorities who claimed "they could storm our embassy in London if Ecuador refuses to hand in Julian Assange."

So... is Britain really going to invade the Ecuadorian embassy for this guy? I mean, I know the US really really wants Assange, but should Britain really be engaging in an act of war on their behalf?

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:43 pm UTC
by Роберт
No, no, you see.... clearly their going to war with Ecuador because bringing a rapist to justice is so important. (Meanwhile, they'll get to all those known rapists that they haven't done anything about later...)

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:59 pm UTC
by ElWanderer
It's not so much a case of invading the embassy, more a case of declaring it no longer an embassy so that the police don't require ambassadorial permission to enter. However, the law that allows the UK government to do that was intended to stop embassies from harbouring terrorists (see below) - it's likely such a move would be appealed and I'd not want to wager money on who would win the court case. It feels more like the UK diplomats acted tough to try to get the Ecuadorians to throw out Assange, but the Ecuadorians have responded by making it public thereby calling their bluff.

BBC News wrote:But aren't all embassies protected from interference?

Yes - but the 1987 act, creating the power to revoke the status of a diplomatic mission, was passed by Parliament in the wake of the Libyan embassy crisis three years before, when PC Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead with a bullet fired from inside the embassy.

Ministers said they needed powers to revoke an embassy's status where the mission was not being used for a proper purpose connected to diplomacy.

The then Foreign Office Minister, Baroness Young, told the Lords at the time that the government had in mind a situation where a mission "was being used... in support of terrorist activity". In other words, the power was needed for exceptional circumstances.

Even if there was a viable legal argument to interfere in an embassy, there are still political considerations. Taking such a step might set a dangerous precedent by encouraging governments in other parts of the world to feel justified in claiming that dissidents seeking diplomatic asylum, but also facing criminal charges, were in foreign embassies illegally and could be forcibly removed from the premises.

Would revoking the embassy's status over Mr Assange be lawful?

That would be for the courts to decide.

If Ecuador challenged a revocation, ministers would have to argue at the High Court that the mission, by harbouring Mr Assange, had fallen foul of international law and they had the right to take action. The government used the power in 1988 to deal with squatters at the Cambodian embassy.

The key 1961 convention underpinning all diplomatic immunity stresses that missions must respect local laws and, in no circumstances, interfere in the host nation's internal affairs.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:55 pm UTC
by johnny_7713
Britain doesn't have to do anything as drastic as storming the embassy. If Assange wants to actually get to Ecuador he will have to leave the embassy and set foot on British soil, at which point the British will arrest him. Basically the British are saying that although he has been granted asylum by Ecuador they are not going to let him go there. As long as he stays in the embassy he's fine (unless the Brits really do want to go down the revoking embassy status route), but he could be stuck there for quite a long time. According to my Dutch newspaper the same thing happened to a guy who took refuge in the Dutch embassy in South Africa. He ended up having to spend two years of his life in the embassy.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:06 pm UTC
by Heisenberg
So how many months does the UK plan on wasting police resources besieging a man who didn't commit any crimes there?

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:14 pm UTC
by Роберт
Heisenberg wrote:So how many months does the UK plan on wasting police resources besieging a man who didn't commit any crimes there?

I thought rape was a crime.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:18 pm UTC
by Robert'); DROP TABLE *;
Роберт wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:So how many months does the UK plan on wasting police resources besieging a man who didn't commit any crimes there?

I thought rape was a crime.

We don't know if he's done it yet. He hasn't even been technically charged, because the Swedish police haven't talked to him formally.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:27 pm UTC
by Роберт
Robert'); DROP TABLE *; wrote:
Роберт wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:So how many months does the UK plan on wasting police resources besieging a man who didn't commit any crimes there?

I thought rape was a crime.

We don't know if he's done it yet. He hasn't even been technically charged, because the Swedish police haven't talked to him formally.

Right. And how do you expect them to talk to him formally?

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:32 pm UTC
by sigsfried
So how many months does the UK plan on wasting police resources besieging a man who didn't commit any crimes there?


He breached bail conditions, Which in itself is a criminal act. On top of that the fact that original crime was committed in Sweden doesn't really make much difference to the obligation to act as best they can.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:33 pm UTC
by Heisenberg
Sweden talked to Ecuador and said they planned to extradite him to the US for that nasty crime of making America look bad. That's what inspired them to grant Assange asylum, as it is their belief that he will not receive a fair trial.

Which is the correct decision, considering that an accusation of terrorism is all it takes for America to either execute you or lock you away forever.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:36 pm UTC
by Роберт
Heisenberg wrote:Sweden talked to Ecuador and said they planned to extradite him to the US for that nasty crime of making America look bad. That's what inspired them to grant Assange asylum, as it is their belief that he will not receive a fair trial.

Which is the correct decision, considering that an accusation of terrorism is all it takes for America to either execute you or lock you away forever.

So, what now, a drone strike on the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK? Collatoral damage might be a little high, but it's not like we let collateral damage get in the way of us killing terrorists.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:40 pm UTC
by Heisenberg
Haven't you heard? If you're killed by a drone strike, you were a terrorist. That's how we count now. Zero collateral damage.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:45 pm UTC
by omgryebread
Robert'); DROP TABLE *; wrote:
Роберт wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:So how many months does the UK plan on wasting police resources besieging a man who didn't commit any crimes there?

I thought rape was a crime.

We don't know if he's done it yet. He hasn't even been technically charged, because the Swedish police haven't talked to him formally.
Yeah, and we don't arrest people until we've convicted them in court. Oh, wait.


Heisenberg wrote:Sweden talked to Ecuador and said they planned to extradite him to the US for that nasty crime of making America look bad. That's what inspired them to grant Assange asylum, as it is their belief that he will not receive a fair trial.

Which is the correct decision, considering that an accusation of terrorism is all it takes for America to either execute you or lock you away forever.
Actually, he may be prosecuted, and Sweden may extradite him for the crime of espionage. Which is, yes, a pretty nasty crime.


Seizing someone from an embassy is a pretty horrible idea, and a terrible precedent to set. That being said, he should be arrested if he attempts to leave the embassy and extradited to Sweden.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:51 pm UTC
by Diadem
The strange thing is that Sweden is very clearly not allowed to extradite him to the US. It would be a very flagrant violation of EU treaties, and probably the Swedish constitution as well. By the same token, the UK is not allowed to extradite him to Sweden if they have legitimate reasons to think Sweden might extradite him to the US. No EU country is allowed to extradite anyone to a country where they might receive the death penalty.

No one in Sweden or the UK seems to care about this. No one in the EU parliament seems to care about it either, which is weird, because while the EU parliament rarely does anything, they do like to talk about human rights, at length.

I'd love to know what Washington has promised them. It must be good.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:17 pm UTC
by Heisenberg
Роберт wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:So how many months does the UK plan on wasting police resources besieging a man who didn't commit any crimes there?

I thought rape was a crime.

Rape is definitely a crime. One that Assange hasn't been accused of. (Except by that idiotic MP in the article, or course.)

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:21 pm UTC
by Роберт
Heisenberg wrote:
Роберт wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:So how many months does the UK plan on wasting police resources besieging a man who didn't commit any crimes there?

I thought rape was a crime.

Rape is definitely a crime. One that Assange hasn't been accused of. (Except by that idiotic MP in the article, or course.)

He definitely has been accused of rape.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:27 pm UTC
by Heisenberg
Edit: My bad, it seems that after the Swedish prosecutors found out their original charges weren't serious enough to get an extradition, they dropped them and made up a rape charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Ass ... al_assault

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:32 pm UTC
by Роберт
Heisenberg wrote:By you?

By a few women he had sex with.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:38 pm UTC
by omgryebread
Heisenberg wrote:Edit: My bad, it seems that after the Swedish prosecutors found out their original charges weren't serious enough to get an extradition, they dropped them and made up a rape charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Ass ... al_assault
The fuck? Assange being a hero among slacktivists doesn't justify this misogynist bullshit. Unless you happen to be a jury comprised of Swedish citizens, you don't get to decide the truth of the charges.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:42 pm UTC
by yedidyak
Do the Brits really have any choice? They have signed an extradition treaty with Sweden, and Sweden has signed obligations that prevent them from extraditing anyone to face a capital charge. So wouldn't Britain be obliged by law to arrest and extradite him at least the moment he sets foot outside the embassy? Thats even without the crime of skipping bail.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:53 pm UTC
by netcrusher88
Heisenberg wrote:Sweden talked to Ecuador and said they planned to extradite him to the US

This is false.
Heisenberg wrote:My bad, it seems that after the Swedish prosecutors found out their original charges weren't serious enough to get an extradition, they dropped them and made up a rape charge

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is especially sad when hoc didn't happen. You're just straight-up lying here.

I wonder what Ecuador doesn't want on WikiLeaks.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:27 pm UTC
by Heisenberg
Read the article. If Sweden wasn't going to extradite Assange to the US, where he could possibly be executed for posting things on the internet, he would be in custody right now.

As for the other thing that's in the article. Sure seems to me like they built a case on witness testimony, found out they couldn't get him extradited on that case, so they dropped that one and made up a new one. That's what Wikipedia says happened. Are they wrong?

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:49 pm UTC
by johnny_7713
Heisenberg wrote:Read the article. If Sweden wasn't going to extradite Assange to the US, where he could possibly be executed for posting things on the internet, he would be in custody right now.

As for the other thing that's in the article. Sure seems to me like they built a case on witness testimony, found out they couldn't get him extradited on that case, so they dropped that one and made up a new one. That's what Wikipedia says happened. Are they wrong?


Where in the article does it say that Sweden is going to extradite Assange to the US? Has the US even requested Assange's extradition from Sweden? Have the Swedish courts held extradition hearings? Why does the US need to extradite Assange from Sweden? Couldn't they just apply to their best buddies the UK? Would seem a whole lot easier.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:52 pm UTC
by Роберт
Heisenberg wrote:Read the article.

OK.
The U.S. has not said whether or not it would pursue charges against him.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:24 pm UTC
by LtNOWIS
I thought European countries would extradite people to the US, in exchange for a promise that they wouldn't receive the death penalty.

But anyways, I'm pretty ok with the current situation, since the embassy is now a de facto prison for Assange.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:11 pm UTC
by Tea Leaf
LtNOWIS wrote:I thought European countries would extradite people to the US, in exchange for a promise that they wouldn't receive the death penalty.

But anyways, I'm pretty ok with the current situation, since the embassy is now a de facto prison for Assange.


Not so with the de facto prison. All they have to do is put him in a "box" and say it's their diplomatic bag; before said "box" is loaded onto a ship or plane to Ecuador.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:39 pm UTC
by Joeldi
Hrmm, last year, the consensus here and elsewhere was that the sexual assault charges levelled at Assange were made by a former spy on very shakey grounds, and that the crime committed was not one that constituted rape outside of Sweden. Something about a condom and retroactively withdrawing consent?

So a lot of what we know has changed since then?

My opinion is that if what he is accused of in Sweden really happened, then of course he should be punished there, but there's no way that he should be punished in the US for anything.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:46 pm UTC
by Elvish Pillager
Joeldi wrote:Hrmm, last year, the consensus here and elsewhere was...

It wasn't.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:51 am UTC
by Sockmonkey
They don't give a shit about the rape aside from the fact that it gives them a pretense to go after him and make him look bad.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:07 am UTC
by LtNOWIS
Tea Leaf wrote:
Not so with the de facto prison. All they have to do is put him in a "box" and say it's their diplomatic bag; before said "box" is loaded onto a ship or plane to Ecuador.

If it was that easy, why wouldn't the various people who have been stuck at embassies for years in the past done that? More to the point, I think the UK can block planes and ships from leaving Britain.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:47 am UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
Heisenberg wrote:So how many months does the UK plan on wasting police resources besieging a man who didn't commit any crimes there?

I haven't seen too many embassies in my life, but those I have seen had constant police presence at the doors anyway. So, no more resources than they already deemed necessary.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:09 am UTC
by Coyne
Heisenberg wrote:Sweden talked to Ecuador and said they planned to extradite him to the US for that nasty crime of making America look bad. That's what inspired them to grant Assange asylum, as it is their belief that he will not receive a fair trial.


Where did you see this? AFAIK, Sweden has never made any such statement. Assange has feared that is the plan, but that's just a concern of his.

Heisenberg wrote:Which is the correct decision, considering that an accusation of terrorism is all it takes for America to either execute you or lock you away forever.


They certainly want him here. Despite the lies they're telling. For example, the recent statement by U. S. State Dept spokeswoman Victoria Nuland:

Asked whether Assange faced persecution in the United States, she said: "With regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting him, I reject that completely."


(Oh, yes, we want to prosecute him; and we'll chase him into hell if we have to, to get him; and torture him in Guantanamo if it seems useful; but no, no, we aren't persecuting him.)

Since U. K. seems to be a U. S. partner in crime these days in most violations of civil rights, probably that's why they're so hot about him fleeing to Ecuador. Because other than the fact that Assange fled, they really have no interest in this battle: All they have to do is tell Sweden, "Sorry, he fled, out of our reach, and we can't extradite him."

So they have a pass, but they won't take it. Instead, looks like they're going to turn it into an international incident.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:16 am UTC
by Coyne
Роберт wrote:
The U.S. has not said whether or not it would pursue charges against him.


According to this, they have already indicted him. Yes, the source is iffy, but it makes sense given the hot responses the leaks generated within our government.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:53 am UTC
by SlyReaper
omgryebread wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Edit: My bad, it seems that after the Swedish prosecutors found out their original charges weren't serious enough to get an extradition, they dropped them and made up a rape charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Ass ... al_assault
The fuck? Assange being a hero among slacktivists doesn't justify this misogynist bullshit. Unless you happen to be a jury comprised of Swedish citizens, you don't get to decide the truth of the charges.

What we can do is make note of the extremely convenient timing of these allegations coming up shortly after he pissed off some governments, and judge that there's a very high probability of the charges being false.

If anyone involved in this case actually cared about getting justice for these women, then Assange would get his guarantee that he wouldn't be shipped off to Leftpondia. He's stated a number of times that he would turn himself over to the Swedish authorities if he had that guarantee.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:11 am UTC
by HungryHobo
You know, we're pretty much conditioned to treat claims that the CIA set someone up as automatically crazy. 99.9% of the time that's the correct response but when the person in question has just weeks before pissed off the most powerful country in the world and some of the politicians above the CIA are publicly saying he should be hunted down while less senior ones were calling for his head... well then it looks a little different and reasonable people give a little more creedance to such claims.

He's one of the few people on this earth whom, if he claims the CIA have him bugged is almost certainly correct.

I believe the statements earlier in the thread saying that sweden said they would extradite him aren't quite accurate. The Ecuadorian government asked for a guarantee that he would not be further extradited to the US from sweeden as a condition for handing him over: something that should be very very easy for sweeden to give. They refused. Which makes it pretty reasonable to assume that they plan to do so. It doesn't have to be mysterious. the US regularly bends other countries arms over trade rights and similar.

How many cases do you think go through the mess that this one did? first being dropped because the prosecutor thought there was no case to answer, then reopened by someone else, then kicked around for a while with lots of politics etc. It's kinda reasonable to believe that US intelligence services have a hand in the matter somehow.

Well played though if it is a setup. anything to do with rape is great, you get to make the person impossible to defend because people like omgreybread will treat any such defense as an attack on women in general and any suggestion that it may be a setup as an attack on the victims. which pretty much triggers a pavlovian response of outrage.

Side note: it's interesting how you can tell which papers want to make him a creep by the photo angle and color balanceing.

The ones which want to make him look like a creep use low angle shots (from bellow his eye level) with the color washed out.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/files/2011/0 ... ssange.jpg
http://cdn.independent.ie/multimedia/dy ... 91404t.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 20076c.jpg
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/0 ... 20x350.jpg

Bonus for squinty eyes.

The ones who don't use shots from above his eye level with proper color balance and eyes open.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Adm ... s--006.jpg
http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth ... i_Leak.jpg
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1071/5147 ... 047b_z.jpg


because when you've seen lots of pictures that make someone look like a creep you'll believe someone is a creep a lot more easily.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:52 am UTC
by morriswalters
Ah the price of fame and glory. Let's see. The US government is well known for prosecuting people who dink with classified material. There are several notables today in prison in the US. The oldest, and most often used hook in spy novels, careless sex. Unless I'm missing something sex did happen. Gee, well why don't you invite them to rub your nose in it. I just can't feel any sympathy. Bradley Manning is fucked, the US has shown that it can't manage classified data very well, and nothing was changed by it, that I can see. If I was the US government I'd be laughing my ass off. I'm sure there are any number of people who would love nothing more than to see him prosecuted, but this is almost as good for them. They have almost certainly achieved at least one goal, and that is marginalizing him. I hope he gets to Ecuador.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:46 am UTC
by Elvish Pillager
HungryHobo wrote:but when the person in question has just weeks before pissed off the most powerful country in the world

Hadn't Assange been continuously pissing off the US for a while? What exactly do you expect someone to do if they're raped by a person like that?

The way I remember it, the story went like this:

- One of the accusers claimed that she refused to have sex without a condom, and later, Assange initiated sex on her, without a condom, while she was asleep. That's quite clearly rape.
- Assange hasn't denied that this happened, but says that he didn't rape her and that there was a "misunderstanding". Research shows that men who commit rape often don't believe that what they did was actually rape, so this seems like a very likely response for someone who actually did what they said he did. Not proof by any stretch, but certainly enough for me to think he shouldn't be excused from facing trial.

On the other hand, we're also seeing a truly ridiculous degree of selective enforcement here; the UK would hardly threaten to dissolve an embassy over some random fleeing rapist. I wouldn't put it past US interests to fabricate charges, but they probably prefer to just hype up charges that are actually true. (Let's face it, lots of people who do big good things also commit rape, and typical legal and moral reasoning says that people should still be punished for major crimes even if it interferes with their ability to do big good things.) And if Sweden really wants to extradite him to the US, then giving him asylum was the right choice on the principle that it's better to let a guilty person go free than punish someone for doing something that wasn't wrong...

I think it raises an important question for those of us who are against rape, about when and how we put our trust in a system of courts and prisons that is often, itself, injust.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:01 pm UTC
by BlackSails
Diadem wrote:The strange thing is that Sweden is very clearly not allowed to extradite him to the US. It would be a very flagrant violation of EU treaties, and probably the Swedish constitution as well. By the same token, the UK is not allowed to extradite him to Sweden if they have legitimate reasons to think Sweden might extradite him to the US. No EU country is allowed to extradite anyone to a country where they might receive the death penalty.

No one in Sweden or the UK seems to care about this. No one in the EU parliament seems to care about it either, which is weird, because while the EU parliament rarely does anything, they do like to talk about human rights, at length.

I'd love to know what Washington has promised them. It must be good.


Thats because nowhere in the US is rape punishable by the death penalty?

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:09 pm UTC
by Sero
BlackSails wrote:
Diadem wrote:The strange thing is that Sweden is very clearly not allowed to extradite him to the US. It would be a very flagrant violation of EU treaties, and probably the Swedish constitution as well. By the same token, the UK is not allowed to extradite him to Sweden if they have legitimate reasons to think Sweden might extradite him to the US. No EU country is allowed to extradite anyone to a country where they might receive the death penalty.

No one in Sweden or the UK seems to care about this. No one in the EU parliament seems to care about it either, which is weird, because while the EU parliament rarely does anything, they do like to talk about human rights, at length.

I'd love to know what Washington has promised them. It must be good.


Thats because nowhere in the US is rape punishable by the death penalty?


That's fine, because Assange isn't accused of committing rape anywhere in the US. He is, however, accused of committing espionage. Which IS a capital crime in the US.

Re: Assange Gets Asylum, UK says it doesn't matter

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:12 pm UTC
by BlackSails
Sero wrote:
BlackSails wrote:
Diadem wrote:The strange thing is that Sweden is very clearly not allowed to extradite him to the US. It would be a very flagrant violation of EU treaties, and probably the Swedish constitution as well. By the same token, the UK is not allowed to extradite him to Sweden if they have legitimate reasons to think Sweden might extradite him to the US. No EU country is allowed to extradite anyone to a country where they might receive the death penalty.

No one in Sweden or the UK seems to care about this. No one in the EU parliament seems to care about it either, which is weird, because while the EU parliament rarely does anything, they do like to talk about human rights, at length.

I'd love to know what Washington has promised them. It must be good.


Thats because nowhere in the US is rape punishable by the death penalty?


That's fine, because Assange isn't accused of committing rape anywhere in the US. He is, however, accused of committing espionage. Which IS a capital crime in the US.


My bad then