Broadband Tech > Security > Security > WikiLeaks.org is crippled under a massive DDoS.

So what's so "interesting" about getting a hold of him, i wonder ?

Mr. Correa presented his move as a pre-emptive strike against American plans to ensnare the Australian-born Mr. Assange and transport him for trial in the United States on espionage charges for his role in publishing tens of thousands of secret American military and diplomatic documents over the past two years. If American officials have made such preparations, they have studiously avoided disclosing them.

I congratulate Ecuador, of course, for standing up to the British Empire here, for insisting that they are not a British colony, and acting as a sovereign state ought to act. And I think they’ve done the right thing. I appreciate what they’ve done.

Well, everything that we’ve seen supports the position of his defense team, that this is not about sexual charges in Sweden, essentially, that that’s a cover story—whatever substance there may be to that story. But the procedures that have been followed here are extraordinary: a red notice here, very unusually given, never under these circumstances, to arrest him and these heavy efforts to extradite him, after he had offered either to be questioned by the prosecutor herself or by some representative of her in the Swedish embassy or the British embassy or by British police in London, where he was, something that, by the way, is routinely done all the time, and the expense is paid for that, if necessary—all of that being refused. Why? In a situation where this man is charged with criminal charges by no country—not by Sweden, not by Britain, not by the United States, although there may in fact be a secret indictment already waiting for him in the United States, being denied or lied about right now by my country. But no charges have actually been made public. So, here, all this emphasis just to get him charged—just to get him questioned, rather, when he’s offered himself for questioning, even right now in the Ecuadorean embassy. The state of Ecuador has actually officially proposed that that take place in the Ecuadorean embassy or elsewhere and in London. And that has been refused. All of this supports the idea that this is merely a way of getting him to Sweden, which apparently would be easier to extradite him from to the United States than Britain. If Britain were totally open to extraditing him, it would have happened by now. Two years have passed. But he’s an Australian citizen, a member of the Commonwealth, and the criteria for extraditing somebody who’s been telling the truth and is wanted for what can only be a political crime in another country are apparently more stringent here than they might be in Sweden.

So I think that—in fact, I join his lawyers, Michael Ratner and others, in saying that he has every reason to be wary that the real intent here is to whisk him away to America, where it really hasn’t been made as clear what might be waiting for him as I think one can conjecture. The new National Defense Authorization Act—and I’m a plaintiff in a suit to call that act unconstitutional, in terms of its effect on me and on others, a suit that has been successful so far at the district court level and has led to that act being called unconstitutional. But on its face, that act could be used against Julian Assange or Bradley Manning, if he weren’t already in military custody. Julian Assange, although a civilian, and not an American civilian at that, would seem to me, a layman, to be clearly subject to the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, putting in military detention for suspicion of giving aid to an enemy, which he’s certainly been accused of by high American officials. I don’t see why he couldn’t be put in indefinite contention, without even the charges that I faced 40 years ago for doing the exact same things that he did.

What has hung over these proceedings – and led to the offer of diplomatic asylum (not political asylum, as widely reported) – is his claim that, once extradited to Sweden, he would be shipped to the US to stand trial for his part in the publication on Wikileaks of thousands of US government cables, and then possibly executed.

Australian officials have confirmed that the country's diplomatic mission in Washington has been prepareing for Julian Assange's possible extradition to the US, but called it "contingency planning."

Meanwhile, Australian newspaper The Age reports that according to information obtained from diplomatic cables, the Washington mission is taking the possibility of extradition seriously. They also say the cables show that Australia has no objection to Assange's potential extradition.

The newspaper also says that Assange continues to be the subject of Australian intelligence reports citing the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, confirming the existence of at least two intelligence reports concerning WikiLeaks and Assange from the Australian Embassy to the US in February and March this year.

Julian Assange is expected to make a public statement later on the diplomatic row that has engulfed him since being granted asylum by Ecuador.

Wikileaks says its founder will speak outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he has taken refuge.

He faces extradition to Sweden over sexual assault claims, which he denies.

Ecuador's president has suggested Mr Assange could co-operate with Sweden if assurances are given that there would be no extradition to a third country.

Australian Mr Assange, 41 - whose Wikileaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables embarrassing countries including the US - first walked into the embassy in Knightsbridge, asking for protection, two months ago.

Mr Assange entered the embassy after the UK's Supreme Court dismissed his bid to reopen his appeal against extradition and gave him a two-week grace period before extradition proceedings could start.

It is established international protocol that local police and security forces are not permitted to enter an embassy, unless they have the express permission of the ambassador.

On Thursday a post appeared on the Wikileaks Twitter feed which said: "ANNOUNCEMENT: Julian Assange will give a live statement infront of the Ecuadorian embassy, Sunday 2pm."

Ecuador's President Rafael Correa has used his weekly national address to state that he has sought assurances over Julian Assange's extradition.

Mr Correa said he wanted a guarantee from Britain and Sweden that there would be no subsequent extradition of Mr Assange to a third country.

Ecuador has granted asylum to the Wikileaks founder, who took refuge at Ecuador's embassy in London in June.

He faces extradition to Sweden over sexual assault claims, which he denies.

President Correa said: "We've never said that Julian Assange shouldn't answer to the Swedish justice system nor contribute to the investigation into these supposed crimes.

"What we have always asked for is a guarantee that there won't be a second extradition to a third country as that would put at risk Mr Assange's life and freedom."

According to BBC correspondent Will Grant, Mr Correa touched on a wide range of topics in Ecuador, particularly education, during his televised address of several hours.

But when he turned to the subject of Mr Assange, he called a letter from the British government over its claimed legal right to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in some circumstances "intolerable" and "an explicit threat" which had to be rejected out of hand.

Now that you mention it, I'm surprised they haven't already, and what would you call that if they surrounded the staff and took him, would that breach any International code?

Yep, health, safety, threat type alert would create an uproar; but you would think as it is officially Ecuador land, would they have to respond to such a threat from external sources?

One of the articles I posted mentioned this:

Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987

I wonder if any of it will hold up in that case?

Not long to go before a statement is made by Julian.

Ecuador seeks 'guarantee' Assange won't be extradited to US from Sweden
»in.news.yahoo.com/ecuador-seeks-···408.html

“ "We've never said that Julian Assange shouldn't answer to the Swedish justice system nor contribute to the investigation into these supposed crimes," Correa said.What we have always asked for is a guarantee that there won't be a second extradition to a third country as that would put at risk Mr Assange's life and freedom," Correa added. ”

So I think Sweden and Great Britain should issue the guarantees, so that the extradition truly is for the crimes alleged in Sweden and not as some sort of conduit to charges in the US.

... It seems to me that countries could come up with a ham sandwich indictment anywhere to move a person to a jurisdiction with the desired extradition arrangements. So, I think Ecuador can look at the "big" picture.

My sense is that I agree with Ecuador. If Sweden and Britain want Assange to answer sexual assault allegations in Sweden, then confine the extradition to that matter.

My sense is that I agree with Ecuador. If Sweden and Britain want Assange to answer sexual assault allegations in Sweden, then confine the extradition to that matter.