There is nothing about the entire situation that is not wrought with controversy, but what seems clear to me is that the behind-the-scenes manipulations by US, Sweden, and G. Britain--under the guise of very poorly defined claims of sexual assault-- are beyond what should be acceptable.

the Embassy.

And Ustreaming it for the world to see.

as an embassy official fired a sub machine gun.

The UK government escorted the staff and the murderer to freedom

British justice?

Assange IMHO is a hero.

he exposed the total bullcrap going on in our state department, and the slaughter of
innocent people in Iraq by U.S. personnel.

Truth is the first casualty in war. Assange is helping keep the truth front and center.

what a load....

"funny" how the two alleged victims- who initially said the sex was consensual, changed their
tune a few days later.

the grubby fingerprints of The Company is obv all over this.

and what would you call starting to fuck somebody unprotected in their sleep without their consent?

In fact, as most everyone can see, this is about publicly destroying powerful figures who have the ability and talent to shake up the PTB.

The "rape" charges are flimsy at best but even without denigrating them, the actions by the UK leave no doubt that this is really about shutting down Wikileaks.

my Personally opinion is that if he started to have unprotected sex with her when she was asleep that is more or less rape, especially since he knew that she wanted to have condoms used during the session they had had when she was awake.

earlier consent(with protection) doesn't mean you have consent to start fucking somebody unprotected in their sleep

And i don't really think this has to much to do with Wikileaks, more then likely Wikileaks would be more effective without him as things are.

nor does she think he's violent.

Sid

than a moldy, stinking cell in Leavenworth here in the U.S.?

It makes no sense as far as the UK Government is concerned to keep him in place at the Embassy. They'll quash their own warrant and allow him safe passage to a waiting flight at Heathrow.

Of living in a converted office, sleeping on an air mattress, and give himself up.

Or, he'll grope some Ecuadoran staffer and get himself kicked out.


Either way, he'll never get to Ecuador.

Sid

He strikes me as a rather quiet, very dedicated, studious man capable of Buddhist serenity in the face of adversity.

I think he will be quite capable of lasting as long as Cardinal Mindszenty -- 15 years in the US embassy in Budapest, Hungary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zsef_Mindszenty

On edit, he will probably write a book if required to spend a long time in the embassy.

He won't be able to go anywhere.

Harrods food hall is almost next door.

to Mr. Assange; that's all well and good, and as a sovereign nation, they have every right to grant asylum to whomever they wish. I must admit to being highly disappointed by the actions of the Swedish government in this instance. They could have defused the whole matter by simply agreeing to NOT extradite Mr. Assange to the USA.

But now for the $64,000 question:

How are the Ecuadorians going to get him out of the Embassy, and to Ecuador?

s

Granting asylum is an easy, low risk thing to do for Ecuador. They just let Assange stay in their embassy. It's a passive act.

Actually trying to smuggle him out of the country requires Ecuador to actually take action. I bet they don't ever make an attempt.

Sid

Good points one and all.

I doubt the Ecuadorians will indeed take any direct action to smuggle Mr. Assange back to Ecuador. Of course, one can't rule it out completely, but I would be surprised.

I wonder what the Ecuadorians would do in retaliation for the Brits (hypothetically) storming their Embassy in London? Perhaps storm the U.K. Embassy in Quito, arrest the staff, and expel them? Certainly, if some country stormed an overseas Embassy of mine (provided I was a sovereign nation state, mind you), that is the manner in which I would retaliate against said country. But that's just me, and I delight in playing hardball.

s

Or perhaps expel the junior staff, leaving only the Ambassador and their immediate staff and/or family.

s

he could have walked in the front door and out the back on day one and have been in Ecuador all this time.

I have this feeling that his escape was planned a long time ago with Ecuador's assistance.

would be something! Imagine a news conference in the next 12 hours, with Mr. Assange in Quito! The Brits would have some major egg on their face in that case.

There would be have been no need for this whole asylum debate. Correa could have just said "Assange is in Ecuador, and will not be extradited".

Sid

including police allowed to serve him with a surrender demand in late June

before he went to Austria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zsef_Mindszenty

He sleeps on a cot in a windowless room and is fed take out food. Would he like to live this way for years to come? Will the Ecuadorians eventually get tired of their guest?

That toppled Nixon. It seems that the cover up, especially in form of persecution and intimidation of Wikileaks and Assange, is having far greater impact on international relations and political climate, than the publication of diplomatic cables in the first place. Ecuador together with rest of Latin America is now clearly saying that they don't consider Britain and the rest of US-EU empire part of civilized world, and that they are not afraid...

America is making a FOOL out of its self but this OPPRESSION

the more you OPPRESS the more Resistance rises up

Assange is now going to MARTYR status

its because the charges are BOGUS

I bet Ecuador has the backing of quite a few South American countries. Everyone is squaring off. It must be really buzzing behind the scenes.

US, Sweden and who else...?

Maybe even some South American countries too. There's no telling yet. But I imagine being backed up by the US carries a lot of weight.

day by day less and less...

From the Guardian blog:

14:27 BST

More from Patino's expansive press conference earlier.

Reporting from Quito, Reuters reports:

He argued that Assange's personal security was at risk, extradition to a third country without proper guarantees was probable, and legal evidence showed he would not have a fair trial if eventually transferred to the United States.


This is a sovereign decision protected by international law. It makes no sense to surmise that this implies a breaking of relations (with Britain).

Patino made it clear that Ecuador had asked Sweden for a guarantee that it would not extradite him to the US, were such a request made. But Sweden had said no, he said.

the British government are ignorant of the legalities and that there are ways Assange can leave.

Sounds like a plan

:humor:

Like it or not, Assange's snub of the secrecy laws of the US and other countries is grabbing the imagination of leaders of emerging countries.

A Distant Mirror -- Barbara Tuchmann's account of the 14th century and the shifts in the power structure of Europe in that germinal time come to mind.

Empires rise and fall. Empires that hang on to the social institutions, military strategies and intelligence operations of the past are doomed.

We are too enrapt in our WWII concept of intelligence. I think we need to move into intelligence that is less about secrets (not entirely without them) and more about learning to understand what is going on in the minds, hearts and societies around the world.

Our very obsession with our national security and secrets is beginning to make us less secure. Yes, we need a national security apparatus and we need to protect certain secrets, but we need to change with the times much more than we are. Wikileaks caught the US unawares. Face it. That's why our government is so mad at Assange.

Assange did not start by publishing secrets from the US. If we didn't want our secrets published, we should have moved to safeguard them. If I don't want racoons in my basement (had them last year), I have to seal the windows to my basement and keep moth balls around my house. The poor raccoons are going to come in to nest if I leave an opening. Can't blame them. I have to take responsibility for myself.

The US is surely capable of preventing Wikileaks from getting its really important secrets. And what is more, the US should not be doing embarrassing, shameful things in the first place.

My prior post, to which you just "replied," concerns the fact that Stockholm has just summoned Quito's ambassador, presumably to explain Sweden's very substantial displeasure that Ecuador is using its London embassy to shelter a fugitive from a warrant issuing in Sweden

a change in the balance of power from established "first world" countries to heretofore third world countries working in an alliance. The third world is full of untapped natural and human resources.

We in the first world are fighting to retain our power and authority in the world. The conflict between Ecuador and the UK over sovereign immunity versus the UK's ability to impose compliance with a UK court decision will, as the pattern of history emerges, be just one step in a change in the international balance of power.

So that is the relevance of my response to your post.

I completely agree with your post JDPriestly.

Assange is a player in exposing how deeply corrupt First world countries are in attempting to stop the inevitable. Countries like Ecuador are justifiably outraged. I'm guessing Correa is seen as a hero amongst his fellow Latin American leaders.

lacking in understanding that we have to adjust to new facts, new realities.

illegal acts of war. The US and UK are paying the price for previous administrations answering to the neocons.

I just hope the US doesn't decide to drop bombs on Ecuador for this.

So sorry, but all of you embassy personnel must be considered potential terrorists, as you are in contact with our "target."

-- Mal

sovereign territory made by the puppets who answer to DC backfired a bit. I can't remember any time in my history a country threatened to invade an embassy to extract a single individual who was seeking asylum.

Hell even China respected that long held tenant of international law when the US gave refuge to Chen Guangcheng in our embassy.

So let me make sure I have this all straight. Giving refuge to a blind Chinese lawyer who speaks out against his government and its polices is all good. Giving refuge to a guy who had the audacity to embarrass the the hell out of the US government by publishing documents that clearly proved they were lying in the face of what they publicly say not so good?

If it weren't for the obvious hypocrisy and such a short time between events it almost might be funny. Unfortunately it has a Benny Hill air of satire about it. I am very embarrassed about it as a US citizen because I don't for a minute think the US government didn't have anything to do with the UK threatening to enter the Ecuadorian embassy.

to live in a progressive free country

PB

if you try to argue with an idiot, it attracts more of them and soon you'll be surrounded by idiots.

1.) He's not an American citizen.

2.) This is the Latest Breaking News forum with the first thread about this actually very important latest breaking news event that people learned about by reading this latest breaking news thread in the Latest Breaking News forum. Yeah, I posted the breaking news thread.

"Fuck you, sock puppet!"

I love it!!!!