Julian Assange will be granted asylum, says official

Originally posted by Seagle
Well said. The audacity of these armchair brainwashed nobodys to call Assange a Coward. This man is doing what no other man, group, organisation, corporation or nation has had the balls to do.

And what exactly has Assange done?

The logic you are using is the same logic Obama uses when he claims credit for the death of bin laden.

Assange did nothing... Pvt. Manning did.
Obama did nothing - US special forces did.

If Obama is directly responsible for the action, then so is Assange.

yes? no?

Updated: 10:13 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012 | Posted: 10:13 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012

Sweden summons Ecuador's ambassador

www.journal-news.com/ap/ap/social-issues/ecuador-decision-on-assange-asylum-due/nRCd9/

The Associated Press

LONDON —

The Swedish Foreign Ministry says it has summoned Ecuador's ambassador over the Latin American country's decision to grant WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange asylum.

The decision to grant Assange asylum may interrupt British efforts to extradite the Australian ex-hacker to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on sexual misconduct allegations. Assange is currently hold up in Ecuador's embassy in London.

Stockholm Foreign Ministry spokesman Anders Jorle said Thursday, "We want to tell them that it's inacceptable that Ecuador is trying to stop the Swedish judicial process."

reply to post by Xcathdra


Whatever you reckon. I vote that Assange plays the cautious card and remains in asylum instead of walking out, being arrested by UK police, extradited to Sweden and HOPING the US doesn't decide to make up charges to extradite him again to the US.

The Ecuadorian Govt seems to agree with Assange and his team that the US has secret plans for him once he's in Sweden, they made that abundantly clear in the media conference earlier.

Better to be safe than extremely sorry in this case. Good work Assange!

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo


Thats done because if people read the Diplomatic protocols along with UN Asylum laws protection of an individual cannot be done in a manner to circumvent the law of the nation in question without just cause and reason.

The extradition request is from Sweden and revolves around possible violation of Swedish Law. Assange and his legal team have provided no evidence to substantiate their claims about Assange and US actions.

Now, if the US seeks extradition then Assange would have a reason / grounds to make his argument. Its improper for Ecquador to grant Asylum based on a legal argument that is based on hypotheticals. Since there is nothing coming from the US on Assange there is no basis to grant Assanges request.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Now, if the US seeks extradition then Assange would have a reason / grounds to make his argument. Its improper for Ecquador to grant Asylum based on a legal argument that is based on hypotheticals. Since there is nothing coming from the US on Assange there is no basis to grant Assanges request.

The US hasn't officially sought extradition for this very reason, hoping that their silence will not give Assange any leg to stand on. As soon as he is out of the embassy and in Swedish hands then BAM come the charges and extradition requests.

Any blind fool can see this.

Originally posted by Kryties
Whatever you reckon. I vote that Assange plays the cautious card and remains in asylum instead of walking out, being arrested by UK police, extradited to Sweden and HOPING the US doesn't decide to make up charges to extradite him again to the US.

Thats my point and you seem to be ignoring it. His entire argument is based on what he thinks the US might do. You cannot base your argument of Asylum off of an action that has never occured. It would be like the US charging assange and dealing with extradition while Assnage and hislegal team make an argument that if he is extradicted to the US he would be sent to Sweden to deal with those possible charges there.

It does not work that way. The premise is based on a term called legal standing. Until a law affects you you have no standing. Sweden and the UK are the same way.

If he goes to Sweden and i[]if the US seeks extradition, Assange has the exact same legal system to fight that extradition, up to and including the EU system. Its not up to a country to determine if the laws of another country are right or wrong. When it comes to a foreign national the purpose of an embassy is to ensure that person has the exact same access to the legal system as if they were a citizen of that country - no more no less.

If you are a Bitish national and you get caught smuggeling drugs into Myanmar, chances are the death penalty is the result. Its not relevant if the UK government doesnt like that law or the penalities related to it. What the concern is is if their national has fair and equal access to the legal system of that country.

You guys seem to ignore that and take it to a level that does not exist.

Originally posted by Kryties
The Ecuadorian Govt seems to agree with Assange and his team that the US has secret plans for him once he's in Sweden, they made that abundantly clear in the media conference earlier.

Better to be safe than extremely sorry in this case. Good work Assange!

Again its an invalid argument since the issues involving the US have nothing to do with the Swedish issues. All Ecquador has done is chosen a position to use for their own political purpose. In case you have not bothered to research the government of Ecquador is closely aligned with that of Venezuela. There foreign policy when dealing with US ossues is the same as that of France during the latter half of the cold war, which is to say their position will always be opposite that of the US.

Granting Asylum does not mean the Ecquadorian government agrees with Assange and his argument.

Originally posted by Kryties
The US hasn't officially sought extradition for this very reason, hoping that their silence will not give Assange any leg to stand on.

Again support this with facts please. Simply stating it does not make it true. There are no charges against Assange in the US and the US has no sought out any extradition requests. So when it comes to the US and Assange and a leg to stand on, you are right that there are none, simply because they didnt exist from the start.

Originally posted by Kryties
As soon as he is out of the embassy and in Swedish hands then BAM come the charges and extradition requests.

You know this how? There are no charges against Assange in the US so how can we request extradition on criminal charges when there are none pending?

Originally posted by Kryties
Any blind fool can see this.

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

The flip side to that argument is sometimes people get so wrapped up in a situation for many reasons that they are unable to see the trees while standing in the middle of the forest.

No charges have been filed against assange in the US.
No requests for extradition have been filed by the US.

Using the US to get out of his issues in Sweden is in fact the act of a coward. Even more so when he uses the exact same tactics he accuses governments of doing.

Ironic..

Just a question, how can Ecuador help Assange by granting him asylum ? I mean, he will be arrested as soon as he steps out of the embassy, will he not ?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Granting Asylum does not mean the Ecquadorian government agrees with Assange and his argument.

Did you even watch the press conference? The Ecuadorian official made it abundantly clear that they tried to get assurances from the UK and Swedish governments that Assange would only face the sex charges and not face further extradition and charges to 'another country' - yet were met with silence. This was a major deciding factor in them granting Assange asylum.

Originally posted by ArtooDetoo
Just a question, how can Ecuador help Assange by granting him asylum ? I mean, he will be arrested as soon as he steps out of the embassy, will he not ?

They can grant him temporary diplomatic status, making him untouchable all the way to the airport and back to Ecuador.

Or he could just set up home in the embassy for an indefinite period - although he'd get rather stircrazy.

Originally posted by ArtooDetoo
Just a question, how can Ecuador help Assange by granting him asylum ? I mean, he will be arrested as soon as he steps out of the embassy, will he not ?

Correct - they cant assist assange unless they sneak him out of the country some how. The moment he steps foot outside the embassy British suthorities will arrest him.

As I was statging before this is nothing more than a political stunt by Ecquador and nothing more.

Out of all the countries on this planet - ecquador? just Ecquador?

If it truely were a fundamental issue with due process there are many other countries who are not friendly towards the US that would have jumped at protecting Assange.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Ecuador can grant Assange some form of temporary political / diplomatic status, enabling them to safely transport him out of Britain under the protection of diplomatic immunity. I am not too sure how that works, but the media here has been discussing that tactic and whether it is possible or not all night. It seems it is.

Originally posted by Kryties
Did you even watch the press conference? The Ecuadorian official made it abundantly clear that they tried to get assurances from the UK and Swedish governments that Assange would only face the sex charges and not face further extradition and charges to 'another country' - yet were met with silence. This was a major deciding factor in them granting Assange asylum.

What part of sovereignty do you not understand?

Those countries can not make a guarantee based on a non existent issue. As has been pointed out time and again you cannot argue that the laws of one country are invalid because the laws in the country you are in say something different.

Assange and his legal team tried that argument and got lauighed out of court. They made the argument o the British judge that the "crime" in Sweden is not a crime in the UK and therefore the request to extradite should be denied based on that. As they were told the responsibility of the court is to determine if the request is valid based on law and if the person would receive a fair trial with access to appeal etc.

The British judge shot down those arguments..

Finally, and again, this has nothing to do with the US. This is between Assange, Sweden and the UK. So, againm, the Evcquadorian position is based on their won policital stance, not Assanges issue. We know this because of how Asylum works under the UN and the status granted.

In Assanges case its political asylum, not discrimination / suspect class who faces persecution.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Ecuador can grant Assange some form of temporary political / diplomatic status, enabling them to safely transport him out of Britain under the protection of diplomatic immunity. I am not too sure how that works, but the media here has been discussing that tactic and whether it is possible or not all night. It seems it is.

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

We have been over this already. No Ecquador cannot grant Assange any type of diplomatic status / immunity. Article 4 / article 8 and article 31 of Diplomatic Protocols for the UN.

Please read that post and the info provided so we dont have to continaully go down this road that doesnt apply.

A person being appointed as a diplomat has to be approved by both, the sending and receiving nation. The person has to be a citizen of said nation and if they are not must get approval by the country they would be stationed in.

A diplomat assigned to one country who then visits another does not have diplomatic immunity in that country. If the receiving nation does not agree with the appointment they can refuse that person, meaning they are not a diplomat and meaning they have no immunity.

The moment Assange steps outside he will be arrested. The UK, under those diplomatic protocols, can put Ecquador on notice of their intent to enter the embassy and there is not a thing Ecquador can do about it.

So no Assange can not be given diplomatic status / nor diplomatic immunity.


This thread - post / info on diplomatic status and immunity

reply to post by Xcathdra


I still don't blame him one little bit for holing up and not risking extradition to the US - regardless of what has been said and done. The US has made it clear they do not like what Assange did, the media here was playing Hillary clips all night of her directly calling for Assange to be brought to the US to face charges. Assange has EVERY RIGHT to be fearful of this. The charges in Sweden just co-incidentally popped up right when all this first occurred and left the door wide open for extradition to the US from Sweden - suggesting that is the plan.

And please don't get all sore that most of us can't trust the US's word as far as we can kick it - the US has called wolf, lied, cajoled and intimidated too many countries and people for us to believe that they don't want Assange extradited now.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I was just going off what an Australian professor of international law was saying on the TV earlier, I tend to trust people who are educated and have experience in these matters.

nice to see that such a small country like Ecuador has the courage to pursue its independent policy on the background of a huge number of puppets

Originally posted by Kryties
I still don't blame him one little bit for holing up and not risking extradition to the US - regardless of what has been said and done. The US has made it clear they do not like what Assange did, the media here was playing Hillary clips all night of her directly calling for Assange to be brought to the US to face charges. Assange has EVERY RIGHT to be fearful of this. The charges in Sweden just co-incidentally popped up right when all this first occurred and left the door wide open for extradition to the US from Sweden - suggesting that is the plan.

Assange has made it clear he doesnt like the US, which is beside the point. Does Assange have the right to worry about the US government taking possible legal action against him? Sure, and I understand that.

The problem is he is using a non existent situation in an effort to get out of a criminal investigation in Sweden. Its not relevant where he is at, the US can easily put in an extradition request to whatever country he is in. As has been pointed out it would actually be easier for the US to extradite from the UK than it is for the US to extradite from Sweden.

People seem to ignore this and I dont understand why that is.

Originally posted by Kryties
And please don't get all sore that most of us can't trust the US's word as far as we can kick it - the US has called wolf, lied, cajoled and intimidated too many countries and people for us to believe that they don't want Assange extradited now.

Im not sore at all.. People are entitled to their own views / opinions. My issue revolves around the lack of understanding on how the laws / legal system work in this area. The hypocrisy is a minor annoyance but that goes with the lack of knowledge.

Example -
People have read the information wikileaks has released and have made up their mind, based on one side, that the US is guilty of this or that.

What people dont understand is how classification of documents work. If the FBI, DEA, and DSS all are involved in the same case / incident / what have you, all 3 of those agencies will do reports. Their reports will focus on their participation in the incident, and all 3 reports can be classified.

Now, if wikielaks manages to get 1 or 2 of those reports but not the third, you dont have the complete picture. Based on responsibilities in the investigation you will have differing levels of information / different kinds of information that will only refer to the other agencies involvement in a broad sense and provide no details.

I can show you a murder confession and people would think the person is guilty without a second thought. I mean he admitted to doing the crime right? In actuality there is a possibility he is covering for someone else, or the person has a mental defect where he goes with what peoploe tell him. Without having all of the facts its difficult to make a determination.

Its fine if people think Assange is a good guy and doing the right thing. However, it still does not negate the fact that there are possible law violations involved and the wronged party has every right to seek redress do they not?

If the bulk of people feel h same as you and the others about Assange, and should the US file charges and get it to stick, he can ask for a jury of his peers. If you are not familiar with how juries are seated let me know and I can explain it.

The fact of the matter is his argument against going to sweden is based soely on an action that has never occured.

That is a problem.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I was just going off what an Australian professor of international law was saying on the TV earlier, I tend to trust people who are educated and have experience in these matters.

Nice attempt at the dig but I do know what im talking about when it comes to diploomatic immunity / titles / privileges / legalities required. I have to know those things for my job since I can encounter these issues.

Secondly, the info I provided comes directly from the horses mouth - namely the actual diplomatic protocols that deal with this area.

Your professor is wrong.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Assange has made it clear he doesnt like the US, which is beside the point.

Yes, it is. And no, beside the point that it may be, he has never said anything about not liking the US. He simply showed the US's corruption and atrocities to the world to make their own judgement. It's Americans who get all patriotic and up in arms and accuse him of 'hating' America.

The problem is he is using a non existent situation in an effort to get out of a criminal investigation in Sweden.

It's this simple - if the intent were not for the US to then charge and request his extradition - why didn't the Swede's just say so when the Ecuadorian govt asked directly about it? Part of the reason the Ecuadorian govt granted asylum was because of this silence and refusal to talk about the issue - strongly suggesting that the plan was to extradite Assange fro Sweden to the US and that the Swedish charges were just to get him there.

People seem to ignore this and I dont understand why that is.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out flaws and obvious deception that gives Assange a right to be wary and a right to request asylum.

If the bulk of people feel h same as you and the others about Assange, and should the US file charges and get it to stick, he can ask for a jury of his peers. If you are not familiar with how juries are seated let me know and I can explain it.

His peers? You are joking right? How are Americans Assange's 'peers' - given that he is Australian?

He will be tried in a foreign country, under foreign laws for a crime that doesn't actually exist - yet if that happened to an American the whole damn country would be up in arms crying foul about it. It's complete hypocrisy.