dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23448
share rss forum feed


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to The Snowman

Re: Assange makes 1st public appearance in 2 months

said by The Snowman:

The Cypherpunk Revolutionary: Julian Assange

»www.themonthly.com.au/julian-ass···nne-3081

( information on the background of Julian Assange )

Current Usage;

Julian Assange;

Common Douchebag.

Currently : Hiding out in a 3rd world embassy to avoid his "rapey" charges.


--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7

1 edit
reply to FF4m3

So funny there FF4me3..RT's stuff on Patino's propaganda to the press..must think he is in charge..links below are what really happened at that meeting...and Hague told the guy to go read that stuff..UK is not seeking a loophole..Ecuador is trying to make it all go away..knowing they have only one option..and their "guest "is not in good health..not surprised he is living on junk food.

»www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/ecudor···83303150

»www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art···cee5276a
--
Gladiator Security Forum
»www.gladiator-antivirus.com/


Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7
reply to FF4m3

Wikileaks' Assange marks Day 100 inside Ecuadorian embassy

Ecuador says it will host Assange in its London embassy indefinitely, but the decision to continue supporting the Wikileaks founder could have negative repercussions for the Andean nation.

Mr. Hague and Mr. Patino met today in New York to discuss the dispute, despite the British official’s skepticism regarding a quick solution.

“We agreed that we would continue to talk, and we will continue to talk about this issue with the government of Ecuador. But I see no sign of any breakthrough,” Hague told reporters at the UN.

»www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas···-embassy

The British government stressed to Ecuador today that it was under an obligation to extradite the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to Sweden, where he faces questioning over sex crimes allegations.

The foreign secretary, William Hague, held talks with Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, in New York, where ministers have gathered this week for a United Nations meeting.

Assange has been in Ecuador's London embassy since June as part of his bid to avoid extradition to Sweden. He fears being sent to the United States if he travels to Sweden, to face interrogation over the whistle-blowing website.

He has been granted political asylum by Ecuador but faces arrest if he leaves the embassy after breaking his UK bail conditions.

The Foreign Office said: "The foreign secretary said he wanted to see close and productive bilateral relations between the UK and Ecuador, including in the areas of trade and investment, higher education, and counter-narcotics co-operation.

"On the case of Mr Julian Assange, the foreign secretary told Minister Patino that the UK was under an obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden.

"The concept of 'diplomatic asylum', while well-established in Latin America, did not feature in UK law.

"The foreign secretary described the extensive human rights safeguards in UK extradition law. He requested the government of Ecuador to study these provisions closely in considering the way ahead.

"Both ministers agreed that they were committed to the search for a diplomatic solution to Mr Assange's case. They were willing to meet again at this level in due course to continue these exchanges."

»www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/se···on-legal
--
Gladiator Security Forum
»www.gladiator-antivirus.com/


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to FF4m3

said by FF4m3 :

UK seeking loophole in extradition agreement with Ecuador - 28 September, 2012:

Patino held a meeting with UK Foreign Secretary William Hague on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

Summarizing the results of the talks, Patino said that he received written confirmation from London that it recognizes the validity of its 1880 extradition treaty with Ecuador. According to Patino, this agreement states that in cases like Assange’s, a person cannot be extradited to a third country.

During the talks Patino reminded his counterpart that the WikiLeaks boss is under Ecuador's jurisdiction, and asserted his country's determination to protect him.

Nevertheless, Britain has pledged to seek a diplomatic solution in order to find a way to extradite Assange.

The above screenshot from British Extradition Law and Procedure: Including Extradition ..., Volume 2 beginning page 312.

nothing new here. I think the way it works is that Sweden should ask for extradition from equador directly. UK has no beef with Assuange.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

quote:
I think the way it works is that Sweden should ask for extradition from Ecuador directly
Sounds logical. Certainly better than the great lion forcing the upper hand by force as once was discussed and causing a massive international event that may spiral out of control.

I wonder how England would respond if Ecuador was to try and drive to the airport and escort him to Sweden under an extradition order of their own? Now that day I'd love to be filming the events.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1

said by norwegian:

quote:
I think the way it works is that Sweden should ask for extradition from Ecuador directly
Sounds logical. Certainly better than the great lion forcing the upper hand by force as once was discussed and causing a massive international event that may spiral out of control.

I wonder how England would respond if Ecuador was to try and drive to the airport and escort him to Sweden under an extradition order of their own? Now that day I'd love to be filming the events.

technically he did jump bail.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to norwegian

said by norwegian:



I wonder how England would respond if Ecuador was to try and drive to the airport and escort him to Sweden under an extradition order of their own? Now that day I'd love to be filming the events.

I suspect they'd stop the vehicle, and arrest Assange. The Ecuadorian consulate is Ecuadorian soil. Roads in the UK aren't. Those with him will likely not be charged with transporting a fugitive, because they'd have diplomatic immunity.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to norwegian

said by norwegian:

...I wonder how England would respond if Ecuador was to try and drive to the airport and escort him to Sweden under an extradition order of their own? ...

I think that if Ecuador believed they had the legitimate right to do that, they'd already have tried it and defied UK to react against them. Part of the problem is that while there's a lot of chatter occurring between diplomats and via press releases, it's not matched by that much comprehensive, crystal-clear law and treaties... and Ecuador knows it. Assange hiding in their embassy is pretty much diplomatically unassailable... their moving Assange anywhere else is not.
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775


dslcreature
Premium
join:2010-07-10
Seattle, WA
reply to Link Logger

quote:
Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.
Duh, your publishing classified documents on a public site, where anyone could read them, by definition, how does Wikileaks figure they get an exception?

One need not be suspected to have given up any classified goods to be charged under communicating with the enemy.

quote:
Mr Ratner said that under US law it would most likely have been considered criminal for the US Air Force analyst to communicate classified material to journalists and publishers, but those journalists and publishers would not have been considered the enemy or prosecuted.
If those journalist aided or were otherwise involved in the crime of acquiring those documents, hell yes they would be prosecuted.

Is that what happened?


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to The Snowman

Seems there is still quite a lot going on in all this.

»www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oc···eit-bail

Julian Assange's supporters have been ordered to forfeit £93,500 in bail money after the WikiLeaks founder sought political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

A court ruled on Monday that the payments must be made within a month by nine friends and backers who in 2010 pledged £140,000 to guarantee Assange would abide by bail conditions during a failed legal challenge to extradition proceedings brought by authorities in Sweden, where he faces allegations of rape and sexual assault.


--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

1 edit
reply to The Snowman

He isn't shy about what he believes in and isn't sitting around on his laurels by the sounds of these.

»www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oc···net-book

Julian Assange to publish book about freedom and the future of the internet
WikiLeaks founder to be co-author of book entitled Cypherpunks, despite being confined to Ecuadorean embassy in London

»www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi···7h3.html

Prominent defamation lawyer Stuart Littlemore, QC, has labelled attempts by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange to find ways of suing Prime Minister Julia Gillard for defamation as nothing more than a stunt.

Mr Littlemore and other legal experts say that defamation claims generally must be made within 12 months of the comments.

Mr Assange has hired lawyers to find a way of suing Prime Minister Julia Gillard for defamation over the claim that WikiLeaks acted illegally in releasing a quarter of a million US diplomatic cables.

In an interview from Ecuador's embassy in London, Assange said Ms Gillard's comment, made in late 2010, influenced MasterCard Australia to join an online financial blockade of the organisation.

''MasterCard Australia, in justifying why it has made a blockade preventing any Australian MasterCard holder from donating to WikiLeaks, used that statement by Julia Gillard as justification,'' he said.

»au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/ne···oke-law/

Prime Minister Julia Gillard made an unwise decision to presume WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's guilt, which has prompted him to pursue a possible defamation case, Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop says.

Ms Bishop says Mr Assange, who has reportedly hired Sydney lawyers to pursue a defamation case against Ms Gillard, is entitled to seek legal remedies if he believes he's been defamed.

Mr Assange has told left-leaning activist group GetUp! that Ms Gillard defamed WikiLeaks when she allegedly told a radio station in 2010 he had broken the law by releasing hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables, according to a statement released by the group on Monday.

--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to norwegian

said by norwegian:

It will be interesting.

What I can't understand is Fairfax saying they have documents via the 'freedom of speech' act and have for 18 months but to date I'm sure I've found none posted - what gives?

It is getting to a stage where we need to clarify facts and fiction and comments like that just don't cut it without proof.

It seems there is a document.

»beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/···018.html

An investigative arm of the Pentagon has termed Wikileaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange, currently holed up and claiming asylum in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London for fear he will be deported to Sweden and thence to the US, and his organization, both “enemies” of the United States.

The Age newspaper in Melbourne Australia is reporting that documents obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act from the Pentagon (PDF) disclose that an investigation by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, a counter-intelligence unit, of a military cyber systems analyst based in Britain who had reportedly expressed support for Wikileaks and had attended a demonstration in support of Assange, refers to the analyst as having been “communicating with the enemy, D-104.” The D-104 classification refers to an article of the US Uniform Military Code of Military Justice which prohibits military personnel from “communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy.”

--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

quote:
.... refers to the analyst as having been “communicating with the enemy, D-104.” The D-104 classification refers to an article of the US Uniform Military Code of Military Justice which prohibits military personnel from “communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy."
Certainly of interest to any US service personnel who might have communicated classified information with Assange or Wikileaks. But it has nothing to do with the US hypothetically charging Assange with something. Which is the (supposed) reason why Assange is currently ducking a Swedish sex assault investigation in a 3rd world embassy.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
reply to dslcreature

said by dslcreature:

Is that what happened?

That is the billion dollar question, given that the US hasn't laid charges etc, I'd say no, but is the investigation over, maybe not.

Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool


Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
reply to norwegian

May I quote from the article posted on Wikileaks concerning 'labels Assange and Wikileaks as '"enemies" of the US', where does it say that? All I see is:

quote:
(D) Matters Alleged: Communicating with the enemy, 104-D-
Once again there is no drama unless you extend beyond what is actually said, 'Matters Alleged', for a journalist Mr. Assange has an extremely poor grasp of the english language, but Julian you can use the power of the internet to get Merriam-Websters where you can lookup the meaning of the word

Alleged

1: asserted to be true or to exist

2: questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called

3: accused but not proven or convicted

So how does this genius get from 'alleged' to 'enemy of the state', second who says that they are not just referring to WikiLeaks as nothing more then the transfer mechanism? For example if I'm handing over classified US documents to (insert US enemy of the week here) via the phone, does AT&T get labeled an enemy of the state?

Like I said before, what happens if Julian goes the Sweden and the US does nothing, no charges, no extradition, no midnight commando raid, nothing? Assange eats a ton of crow, wears two tons of sh*t and its the express train to yesterday's forgotten news for him, hence why he doesn't want to go to Sweden as the US isn't going to do a dam thing and he knows it. Better hurry up and get that book out before everyone catches onto your folly Julian.

Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

By all means - it is meant to be a free world, free speech etc.

The way I look at it, there seems no real docs to back the play "enemy of the state" by the news that I searched.
It all lead back to the 1 article by the SMH, but then who knows.....the paperwork maybe kept under lock and key for now.

The US if they are to play at taking down the site and it's creator, they won't be leaving the paperwork in the open either and allowing it to create a fiasco such as the issue for Britain at present.
I don't doubt they are after him, he has been a thorn in the side since before we all met here.

I worry enough about me commenting here and what it does or would do for my family if someone were to come after me for my views.....I think anyone would be concerned.
What are the long term goals for the man; that is something I've been pondering. I hope he does have good solid facts; as it is hurting his family; and that must cross his thoughts a lot.

History depicts there is a lot of mystery of and men/women, the world over:
Mysterious deaths
Assassinated people of the world

We tread on thin ice at times, and the powers that be; well let's just say can take out anyone at any time.

Arlo Guthrie released a song called Alice's Restaurant and it's under tones are very suggestive of what a group of people who believe in a similar ideology can become to the powers that be, even though it is about 1 man.

Good luck mister in your chosen path is all I can say.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

said by norwegian:

I worry enough about me commenting here and what it does or would do for my family if someone were to come after me for my views.....I think anyone would be concerned.

I think the chances of a person generally supportive of Assange being targeted by some sort of nefarious intelligence arm of a hypothetical nation to be about zero. And they have a few thousand to get through before you even assuming the wild notion that they'd be interested in any way to be true. I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over this "worry". Assange himself operated basically in the open for years. And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.

By a similar token, I suppose I could worry about being "hacked" by Anonymous or what-not for generally believing that Assange should "man-up" and go face his accusers, in Sweden, and saying so.

Am I worrying? Nope.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


yeeeah

@videotron.ca

said by Ian:

And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.



AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1

said by yeeeah :

said by Ian:

And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.


100% accurate
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--


Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

said by norwegian:

I worry enough about me commenting here and what it does or would do for my family if someone were to come after me for my views.....I think anyone would be concerned.

I think the chances of a person generally supportive of Assange being targeted by some sort of nefarious intelligence arm of a hypothetical nation to be about zero. And they have a few thousand to get through before you even assuming the wild notion that they'd be interested in any way to be true. I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over this "worry". Assange himself operated basically in the open for years. And he seems to be only in legal trouble at all over the rape allegations, not Wikileaks.

By a similar token, I suppose I could worry about being "hacked" by Anonymous or what-not for generally believing that Assange should "man-up" and go face his accusers, in Sweden, and saying so.

Am I worrying? Nope.

Who are we to fear the most when it comes to free speech, the evil government or the so called defenders of free speech? If the question even has to be asked, then perhaps the defenders have already failed.

Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

1 edit

said by Link Logger:

Who are we to fear the most when it comes to free speech, the evil government or the so called defenders of free speech? If the question even has to be asked, then perhaps the defenders have already failed.

Blake

I think the time is drawing closer when this will be. Outspoken is already frowned upon.

Just look at the link posted above on the affects of a prime minister. Our prime minister allegedly commented on Julian being guilty in 2010, and the subsequent shut down of all credit card blocking of donating to an 'illegal organisation" as well as other forms of donating. I'm sure it was discussed here in the topic earlier too.

She has basically used the power of her seat to thwart his cause. I can understand the want to hit back with a deformation suite of some sort.

»www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-08/a···/4300262
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

1 recommendation

said by norwegian:

She has basically used the power of her seat to thwart his cause. I can understand the want to hit back with a deformation suite of some sort.

Publicity stunt. Nothing more.

»www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi···ext-only

"Prominent defamation lawyer Stuart Littlemore, QC, has labelled attempts by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange to find ways of suing Prime Minister Julia Gillard for defamation as nothing more than a stunt.

Mr Littlemore and other legal experts have today said that defamation claims generally must be made within 12 months of the comments."

""For the life of me I cannot imagine that there is a cause of action that WikiLeaks could ever bring, least of all if it had done it within time."

So what exactly did Ms. Gillard say that was so "slanderous"?

"I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website. It's a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do.""

Yeah, good luck with that Mr. Assange. It might serve its purpose in deflecting conversation away from his ducking rape charges for a bit though.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7
reply to The Snowman

Anonymous withdraws support for WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has lost another high-profile supporter as Anonymous, the hacking collective, said the whistleblowing site had been “ruined by egos”.
Anonymous, a loose group of internet “hacktivists”, has been one of WikiLeaks’ closest allies during the past two years, launching cyber attacks against the site’s opponents and, some claim, becoming a source of its material.

But leading Anonymous accounts on Twitter, which rallied behind WikiLeaks and Mr Assange despite his legal and financial woes, have now withdrawn their support, decrying the freedom-of-information project as a “One Man Julian Assange show”.
Calling the split “the end of an era”, Anonymous tweeted: “It was an awesome idea, ruined by egos.”

»www.ft.com/cms/s/0/17e6d936-1486···dc0.html
--
Gladiator Security Forum
»www.gladiator-antivirus.com/


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
reply to The Snowman

Assange's list of allies grows thin... (with apologies to Elrond)



Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7

When parts of WikiLeaks' website recently disappeared behind a banner asking that users make a donation — a tactic similar to the paywalls of some newspapers online — anger exploded across the Internet, with criticism coming from many who had backed the organization in the past.

"This, dear friends will lose you all allies you still had," said a statement posted by a heavily-followed, Anonymous-linked Twitter account.

The scale of the annoyance among Anonymous supporters was difficult to gauge because the leaderless movement is by its nature hard to get a handle on. But several closely watched Twitter accounts linked to Anonymous expressed anger and unhappiness with the move.

One released a full statement saying that the fundraising campaign was the final straw.

"We have been worried about the direction WikiLeaks is going for a while. In the recent month the focus moved away from actual leaks and the fight for freedom of information further and further while it concentrated more and more on Julian Assange," the statement said. It also expressed annoyance with the 41-year-old Australian's recent meeting with pop diva Lady Gaga at the embassy.

»www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1···622.html
--
Gladiator Security Forum
»www.gladiator-antivirus.com/


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to Blackbird

said by Blackbird:

Assange's list of allies grows thin...

It seems though there are 2 angles to this:

1. He is doing it to raise pocket money and possibly become rich.

2. He is trying to help cover funds for now and the future towards the campaign.

The problem here is what are the motives?

Remember his funds ex Australia were shut down by a few well laid words. He then jumps bail. While the second was his own doing, the first would have had major impacts on any direction going forward, "ego" as quoted, or any other reason. But because the site is asking for donations it is automatically a bad thing. Where do Anon get their funds etc? Big corporation shifts in any direction can change the flow of money in an instant, it's a 101 of today's economics. We aren't bartering for sheep and cows anymore, last time I checked. (Excuse those few countries that still live a simple existence.)
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to Name Game

We have been worried about the direction WikiLeaks is going for a while. In the recent month the focus moved away from actual leaks and the fight for freedom of information further and further while it concentrated more and more on Julian Assange," the statement said.



That does seem the case of late.

It also expressed annoyance with the 41-year-old Australian's recent meeting with pop diva Lady Gaga at the embassy.

So now he has to bow to the beliefs of Anon to still be on his life path? He has to pay the bills somehow, and business and friends sometimes cross those paths. We understand our enemies better than our friends sometimes.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

2 recommendations

reply to The Snowman

Someone else's motives can be a very difficult thing to judge, perhaps ultimately impossible. But the chain of events immediately leading to where Assange is today include fleeing judicial process for sexual accusations in Sweden, being sought for extradition from the UK for that by Sweden, promising to abide by bail terms in UK while that extradition was being appealed, and finally (thus far) jumping bail into the sanctuary of a 3rd World embassy in the UK. To a purely jurist mind, his ongoing word would now mean little or nothing. These are all holes he has dug by himself, for himself.

It seems to me that it's to defend against legal consequences of all these actions for which he wants financial assistance. Granted, he claims that such defence is against ultimate extradition to the US for ill-defined crimes for which he's never been charged, but at present that remains only a claim. Whatever his "life path" might be purported to be, his trajectory of late seems filled with very much of "Assange" and very little of "freedom of information."

Whatever happened to the courage of one's conviction? I'm disappointed that Assange entangled himself in whatever he did in Sweden, illegal or not, with so many more-significant things at stake. I'm disappointed that he's run from the immediate legal processes and consequences there. I'm disappointed that he broke his word in applying for bail in the UK and jumping it. I'm disappointed that his plaintive cry continues to be that the US bogey-man will "get him", rather than boldly rising up to look such a situation directly in the eye and to make a principled stand for freedom of speech or freedom of information or freedom of journalism or whatever other freedom he claims to be defending. Instead, he continues to duck and hide, spewing repetitious press releases at every turn. I suspect many others, some of them his past financial supporters, are increasingly disappointed for these and other reasons.
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775


Frodo

join:2006-05-05
reply to AVD

said by AVD:

nothing new here. I think the way it works is that Sweden should ask for extradition from equador directly. UK has no beef with Assuange.

I see a problem with trying to ask for extradition from Ecuador directly. According to this Wikipedia article, the Ecuadorian embassy is not soverign territory of Ecuador.
Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality" is often applied to diplomatic missions, but only in this broader sense.

If this is true, then Assange is still on British soil. That could mean that Sweden needs to pursue extradition with GB. The stumbling block remains that Great Britain and Sweden decline to arrange the extradition in a way that would preclude any subsequent extradition to a 3rd country, such as the US. That would involve guarantees under article 28(4) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States along with arrangements to eliminate ways to circumvent that agreement. According to update one there may be a way to circumvent the framework. If that stumbling block is removed, then it is my understanding that Ecuador will surrender Assange.

However, at this point, from what I've heard, Great Britain and Sweden have declined to handle this extradition in a way that would preclude a subsequent extradition to a 3rd country.


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to Blackbird

said by Blackbird:

I'm disappointed that his plaintive cry continues to be that the US bogey-man will "get him", rather than boldly rising up to look such a situation directly in the eye and to make a principled stand for freedom of speech or freedom of information or freedom of journalism or whatever other freedom he claims to be defending. Instead, he continues to duck and hide, spewing repetitious press releases at every turn. I suspect many others, some of them his past financial supporters, are increasingly disappointed for these and other reasons.

Well put - it could just be how some of his supporters are feeling, hence the articles posted directly above in regards to Anon. We are all outsiders in this story and they were closer to him than we will ever be.

I enjoyed reading your reply. Hopefully Julian has a minute to read it too.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke