WikiLeaks founder on Interpol's most wanted list... for rape?

But Robear, don't you think it works better like this?

I`m mildly entertained by the idea that Assange has nice, private selection of leaks about Ecuador and has always planned blackmailing for sanctuary as his emergency exit strategy.

But Robear, don't you think it works better like this?

Do you think so? I probably should have thought of that before I posted. I always start out with a great idea and then it gets SAVAGED by REALITY! Do you ever think about reality, Dromo... Er, Scratched? Reality is WEIRD! I should know!

Most wrote:

I`m mildly entertained by the idea that Assange has nice, private selection of leaks about Ecuador and has always planned blackmailing for sanctuary as his emergency exit strategy.

Or, conversely, Ecuador is the ONLY country which somehow didn't end up pissed at him as a result of the diplomatic cables disclosures.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Most wrote:

I`m mildly entertained by the idea that Assange has nice, private selection of leaks about Ecuador and has always planned blackmailing for sanctuary as his emergency exit strategy.

Or, conversely, Ecuador is the ONLY country which somehow didn't end up pissed at him as a result of the diplomatic cables disclosures.

Apparently he has a personal connection to Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, and was invited by the Foreign Minister to live and work in the country back in 2010 because he liked the work Assange was doing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492

So, Ecuador grants him asylum and now there's the tricky task of actually getting him to Ecuador. UK threatens to lift the embassy's diplomatic status to go and arrest him, and will not grant him safe passage. Someone really wants him badly.

Scratched wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492

So, Ecuador grants him asylum and now there's the tricky task of actually getting him to Ecuador. UK threatens to lift the embassy's diplomatic status to go and arrest him, and will not grant him safe passage. Someone really wants him badly.

This is ridiculous! What are the papers saying about all this in the UK? It basically puts paid to the idea of the sovereignty of embassies in the UK.

.... and all of this just for questioning!

If Swedish authorities had just deigned to question him in the UK in the first place (something I'm pretty certain they can be granted to do with the consent of the local authorities) then none of this would have happened. Even better! If Swedish authorities hadn't allowed him to leave the country then even less of this would have happened.

Duoae wrote:

.... and all of this just for questioning!

If Swedish authorities had just deigned to question him in the UK in the first place (something I'm pretty certain they can be granted to do with the consent of the local authorities) then none of this would have happened. Even better! If Swedish authorities hadn't allowed him to leave the country then even less of this would have happened.

That's the part that gets me. What would the world look like if the police/judicial forces of the world pursued all allegations with the same level of action that they've pursued Assagne for rape. That's in addition to the recent (unrelated) cases of surfthechannel (4 years in prison for a site of links) and TVshack (extradition to US).

I tend to scoff at conspiracy theories but as this story drags on I'm finding it harder to believe it's all just about a questioning in a sexual assault case. Sweden does have a history of secretive and controversial extraditions to the US.

I was dismayed to hear the British rattle the sabers. Britain wouldn't accept a military raid on one of its own embassies to grab someone the host government wanted for questioning or arrest.

Wow! If the British wave immunity for the entire Ecuadorian embassy, every British embassy around the globe is fair game.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

This must be great for Assange's ego.

kyrieee wrote:

I tend to scoff at conspiracy theories but as this story drags on I'm finding it harder to believe it's all just about a questioning in a sexual assault case. Sweden does have a history of secretive and controversial extraditions to the US.

I'm too lazy to search for it right now but it was noted i this thread a year or two ago (I think by Malor) when this first broke that one of the women levying charges against him is a known entity (e.g. has worked undercover) for the CIA. So...yeah.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Wow! If the British wave immunity for the entire Ecuadorian embassy, every British embassy around the globe is fair game.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Wow, the UK government is really trying to go full-retard over this. I hope they pulled everyone out of their Ecuadorian embassy before they started spouting off this foolishness.

That accusation - that one of the women had ties to the CIA - was asserted by Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett at Counterpunch in September 2010. It was then tweeted by Bianca Jagger - really - and that was picked up by Keith Olbermann and popularized. It's based on the assertion that one of the women had worked for "several anti-Castro groups", one of which had been "openly supported" by Luis Posada Corrales, a terrorist who blew up a Cuban airliner. And so her work for leftist groups becomes in reality a right-wing operation designed to smear Assange.

It's a pretty thin association, but if you're into conspiracy theories, this one really chews the scenery.

Apolgies if this has already been posted, but I thought this was interesting. Expert testimony by former Chief District Prosecutor for Stockholm on how and why the rape case against Assange has been spectacularly mishandled.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/A...

My reading of the situation:

Assange can't be held in custody in the UK. My Swedish wife asserts that violent crime carries mandatory remand in Sweden, so if he was questioned in Sweden he could be immediately charged and held on ice.

The US State Dept needs to be able to bring a case against him that doesn't step within 10 feet of the First Amendment. For that they'd need to prove a link to Manning so they can get him on conspiracy/espionage. That is to say to prove he was party to leaking the information, not merely publishing it. For that they'd presumably need to flip Manning, which I don't believe they've done yet.

The US need to get him somewhere nice and compliant where he can be held in custody while they build a case with which they can chuck him in Gitmo or whatever other hole they've dug for him.

I'll eat my pants and post it on youtube if he ever sees a trial for rape.

The US State Dept needs to be able to bring a case against him that doesn't step within 10 feet of the First Amendment. For that they'd need to prove a link to Manning so they can get him on conspiracy/espionage. That is to say to prove he was party to leaking the information, not merely publishing it. For that they'd presumably need to flip Manning, which I don't believe they've done yet.

Or, state that they acquired the information via "national technical means" and cover it all with a blanket of national security mumbo-jumbo. Either way, the effect is the same.

Maq wrote:

The US need to get him somewhere nice and compliant where he can be held in custody while they build a case with which they can chuck him in Gitmo or whatever other hole they've dug for him.

I'll eat my pants and post it on youtube if he ever sees a trial for rape.

Yes, because everyone in Gitmo has been to trial with a case that the government brought against them, right?

This isn't about the truth. This isn't about justice. This is about revenge. I have no doubt that if the US government can't build a solid legal case against him that they'll just make him suffer without ever bringing one.

I think Maq was being sarcastic/bitter. . .

Seth wrote:

I think Maq was being sarcastic/bitter. . .

Not so much.

I've just watched the documentary "Sex, Lies and Julian Assange", that you can watch for free over here : http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stori... (about 45min running time)

On one hand, I think the documentary and specifically Assange's US lawyer presented a very compelling argument that there is a grand jury looking at the case (with conspiracy and espionage as the legal basis).

On the other hand, I think there was a piece of misleading information from Assange's UK legal adviser. She says that the red notice issued for Assange's arrest is highly unusual (only used for terrorists or dictators) and extreme considering the case. She adds that Gaddafi only had an orange notice, as to imply it is less severe than Assange's.

But looking at Interpol's types of notices, it seems that the use of a red notice was appropriate (seeking extradition). The orange notice is used for cases that pose a threat to public safety. Moreover, the wikipedia page has statistics for 2011 that show the red notice is by far the most common type.

It's hard to navigate in between the misinformation that is thrown around by both Assange's supporters and detractors. It's a bit of a frightening experience, seeing all that "spin" brought to light when it usually goes unnoticed, if not unsuspected.

Gee, Britain's awfully, awfully interested in someone who's accused of rape, isn't it?

Edwin wrote:

Woops

Asked about the photograph, a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police told CNN "the document is not related to the Julian Assange case."

Description of the document she denies is related to the Assange case:

Clearly legible in a zoomed-in view of the clipboard, on a sheet of paper headed "Restricted," are the words: "EQ Embassy brief - Summary of current position re. Assange. Action required - Assange to be arrested under all circumstances."

Skeptical panda is skeptical.

It goes on to suggest possible ways in which he could exit the building, such as in a diplomatic bag or vehicle.

How would this work?

I imagine it's a light-blue body bag with a big UN seal stamped on it.

It's a big bag.

Slacker1913 wrote:
It goes on to suggest possible ways in which he could exit the building, such as in a diplomatic bag or vehicle.

How would this work?

I remember seeing an explanation somewhere though I forget where so I'll just link this:

The physical concept of a "diplomatic bag" is flexible and therefore can take many forms e.g., a cardboard box, briefcase, duffel bag, large suitcase, crate or even a shipping container.

I don't see what the Britain government is getting out of this at this stage. It's got to be costing them a small fortune in overtime to keep the place surrounded by cops. Are they that concerned with what happens in a rape case in Sweden they're willing to go ballistic in a diplomatic dispute with Ecuador? Is the relationship with the U.S. government going to be harmed if they turn around and say, "This is getting stupid- we're going to let him head out to Ecuador so the Swedes can deal with extradition from there."

I mean, nobody seems to viewing this as a case about rape, like say, the Roman Polanski case. It's all about worries over the guy ending up in the U.S. secret justice system.