Ecuador: UK Threatens to Raid Embassy

[Nadkor]

What the fuck does the U.S have anything to do with this? They have no desire to pursue Assange.

http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/20 ... crime.html

You know how the world hates American exceptionalism? Maybe the world needs to stop blaming the U.S for everything.

And no, considering charging him does not equate to charging him.

Excuse me, but the US wants to extradite Assange and give him the death penalty. What news have you been reading?

There is no actual credible (i.e. non-tinfoil hat) source for this, and nobody has managed to explain why, if they US really wished to extradite him, they wouldn't try to do it from the UK rather than Sweden.

Not to mention that neither the UK nor Sweden can legally extradite someone if they will face the death penalty.

[Karcha]

Damn British.

[Shadowlandistan]

The UK is being extremely hypoctirical here. The US and UK are acting like authoritarian states, all because someone had the audacity to do REAL journalism. It's quite disgusting.

Never mind the rape charges pending on Assange.

Sweden closed the case on Assange (who apparently didn't wear a condom during sex), then opened it again when faced with US pressure.

Excuse me, but the US wants to extradite Assange and give him the death penalty. What news have you been reading?

They have made an official statement that they have no intention of extraditing him at the present time...

A few right-wing commentators may have called for execution, but they are not the US government nor do they represent it.

Listen to what US prosecutors have been saying. They want to extradite him and give him the Bradley Manning treatment, that's a fact. They are working behind the scenes to make this happen. Why the hell do you think the UK wants to arrest him so badly for?

[Nadkor]

Never mind the rape charges pending on Assange.

Sweden closed the case on Assange (who apparently didn't wear a condom during sex), then opened it again when faced with US pressure.

They have made an official statement that they have no intention of extraditing him at the present time...

A few right-wing commentators may have called for execution, but they are not the US government nor do they represent it.

Listen to what US prosecutors have been saying. They want to extradite him and give him the Bradley Manning treatment, that's a fact. They are working behind the scenes to make this happen. Why the hell do you think the UK wants to arrest him so badly for?

Tinfoil hats out lads!

[Gauntleted Fist]

Tinfoil hats out lads!

Look I understand that the US does some pretty evil shit from time to time, but even I don't really think Sweden is going to just hand him over. (This is not saying you are saying this, Nadkor.)

[Person012345]

Never mind the rape charges pending on Assange.

Sweden closed the case on Assange (who apparently didn't wear a condom during sex), then opened it again when faced with US pressure.

They have made an official statement that they have no intention of extraditing him at the present time...

A few right-wing commentators may have called for execution, but they are not the US government nor do they represent it.

Listen to what US prosecutors have been saying. They want to extradite him and give him the Bradley Manning treatment, that's a fact. They are working behind the scenes to make this happen. Why the hell do you think the UK wants to arrest him so badly for?

Just FYI, making things up =/= facts.

and hmm, I don't know, because it's the fucking law maybe?

[Samuraikoku]

Listen to what US prosecutors have been saying. They want to extradite him and give him the Bradley Manning treatment, that's a fact. They are working behind the scenes to make this happen. Why the hell do you think the UK wants to arrest him so badly for?

Because they have to extradite him to Sweden?

[Samuraikoku]

Tinfoil hats out lads!

Tinfoil hats?

[Gravlen]

Don't they have juries in norway?.

In their lagmannsrett (court of appeal).

For some crimes...

Man, South America is always the place to go for wanted criminals. The Nazis, the Welsh, Assange...when are they going to get their act together?

Yes, it's quite a magnet fo-

Wait, what?

Never mind the rape charges pending on Assange.

Sweden closed the case on Assange (who apparently didn't wear a condom during sex), then opened it again when faced with US pressure.

Factual errors striked out. Vital facts are missing. Try again.

I admire the Ecuador government for standing up to our government and...

You're Swedish? Bork bork bork?

[Great Nepal]

Sweden closed the case on Assange (who apparently didn't wear a condom during sex), then opened it again when faced with US pressure.

Factual errors striked out. Vital facts are missing. Try again.[/quote]
Wait... You are telling me Sweden had unprotected sex?
With whom?

[Norstal]

Wait... You are telling me Sweden had unprotected sex?
With whom?

She got sandwiched between Norway and Finland, if ya know what I mean.

[Vitius]

So I can go off and kill some people in Texas and get away with it because I think it's right? No, whether you think it's right or not doesn't matter. Still, I guess that's a matter of opinion and might be irrelevant.

Killing people is obviously wrong, bringing the murders of iraqi civilians killed by US troops to light isn't, in my opinion anyway. Obviously I understand that to most people reading this probably believe my opinion is of the least significance, but that's what I choose to believe.

Note that I'm not taking any sort of position about Assange here, but he didn't just bring the murders of Iraqi civilians to light, he published thousands of diplomatic cables.

[Norstal]

Killing people is obviously wrong, bringing the murders of iraqi civilians killed by US troops to light isn't, in my opinion anyway. Obviously I understand that to most people reading this probably believe my opinion is of the least significance, but that's what I choose to believe.

Note that I'm not taking any sort of position about Assange here, but he didn't just bring the murders of Iraqi civilians to light, he published thousands of diplomatic cables.

And revealed his informants' names for some unspeakable, trollish reason.

http://worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/th ... s/c1s3697/

[Great Nepal]

Wait... You are telling me Sweden had unprotected sex?
With whom?

She got sandwiched between Norway and Finland, if ya know what I mean.

But, then... wouldn't Norway and Finland have to wear condom rather than Sweden?

[Vitius]

Note that I'm not taking any sort of position about Assange here, but he didn't just bring the murders of Iraqi civilians to light, he published thousands of diplomatic cables.

And revealed his informants' names for some unspeakable, trollish reason.

http://worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/th ... s/c1s3697/

No, no, no, you don't get it.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg is the one to blame. Assange is a man of truth and clarity, after all. If he claims that it was Berg, it was Berg.

EDIT: Oops, sorry, it was The Guardian's fault as well.

[Ethel mermania]

Excuse me, but the US wants to extradite Assange and give him the death penalty. What news have you been reading?

There is no actual credible (i.e. non-tinfoil hat) source for this, and nobody has managed to explain why, if they US really wished to extradite him, they wouldn't try to do it from the UK rather than Sweden.

Not to mention that neither the UK nor Sweden can legally extradite someone if they will face the death penalty.

Mark weisbrots column in todays guardian sums up the rational quite nicely.
Techdirts colun today also does a good job. Www.techdirt.com
( I can not cut and paste as I am on my phone).

[Enfaru]

There is no actual credible (i.e. non-tinfoil hat) source for this, and nobody has managed to explain why, if they US really wished to extradite him, they wouldn't try to do it from the UK rather than Sweden.

Not to mention that neither the UK nor Sweden can legally extradite someone if they will face the death penalty.

Mark weisbrots column in todays guardian sums up the rational quite nicely.
Techdirts colun today also does a good job. http://Www.techdirt.com
( I can not cut and paste as I am on my phone).

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201208 ... cost.shtml

[Ethel mermania]

Mark weisbrots column in todays guardian sums up the rational quite nicely.
Techdirts colun today also does a good job. http://Www.techdirt.com
( I can not cut and paste as I am on my phone).

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201208 ... cost.shtml

Thank you

[Gravlen]

Back to trial by media instead of looking at the present-day allegations in the EAW?

Regardless, your understanding is wrong, possibly because you lack the following sentence:

– Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne. Vi står fullt ut för uppgifterna, säger kvinnan till Aftonbladet.

- The other woman wanted to report the rape. I gave my story as a testimony to her story and to support her. We stand fully behind the information given, the woman says to Aftonbladet.

More accurately, "the other woman wanted to report it as rape" (and I also told my story, to support her). The "other woman" is the one whose story is that she insisted on a condom, had a terrible time getting him to put a condom on, and then was dismayed when it was broke: she says that he tore it intentionally.

No, the other woman is Sofia Wilen, "SW" in the EAW. She's the one claiming to wake up to Assange penetrating her without a condom.

She says she didn't refuse to sign a police complaint, but that she wasn't raped herself (as per the EAW's one count of rape).

No, she DID refuse to sign the initial version "complaint" (what we would call the "indictment"; the prosecutor's case), the version in which she was said to have been "raped"; what she is denying is that her refusal was the result of any pressure from Assange or fear of him.

Your source doesn't back the assertion that she refused to sign anything.

She says the other woman reported a rape. She continues to say that she's fully behind the allegations.

That it's supposedly a "hearsay account" is completely demolished by your own source, which states that the other woman actually reported a rape.

You are misunderstanding what I am telling you. The version in which Assange raped her in her sleep was the "hearsay" version, based on what the prosecutor gathered from talking to the other woman, after the two women had gotten together; once it became clear that the story was somewhat different, that they had been having consensual sex when he unexpectedly re-entered her, and that she didn't like it but didn't say anything because she was drowsy, the prosecutor had to withdraw the complaint with the double-rape charge (it would be particularly awkward with the second "victim" not agreeing to it).

You're still not correct.

Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand was the prosecutor who first heard the allegations. Her view was that it was the information was convincing enough to warrant an investigation.

- Jag fick en redogörelse av polisen som jag tyckte var tillräcklig för att anhålla honom. Jag ångrar inte mitt beslut på något sätt, säger Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand.

- I received a report from the police which I thought was enough to arrest him. I do not regret my decision in any way, says Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand.

The case was sent to the chief prosecutor, Eva Finné. She decided to overturn the previous decision regarding the rape investigation. Without the rape allegations there were no longer sufficient reasons to warrant his arrest.

Chefsåklagare Eva Finné meddelade sitt beslut via en pressrelease:
- Jag anser inte att det finns anledning att misstänka att han har begått våldtäkt.
[...]
Karin Rosander, informationsdirektör på åklagarmyndigheten, svarade på alla följdfrågor:
- Då finns det inte skäl att ha honom anhållen längre.

Chief prosecutor Eva Finné announced its decision in a press release:
- I do not think there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.
[...]
Karin Rosander, Director of Prosecution, answered all follow-up questions:
- Then there is no reason to have him arrested anymore.

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/aklagaren-som-anholl-assange-jag-angrar-det-inte/

Later the attorney general Marianne Ny decided, after a request from Claes Borgström the lawyer for the women, to relaunch the investigation into the rape accusation.

At no point was there a "double-rape charge". He was being investigated for one count of rape, and several counts of sexual molestation based on the testimony of the women.

They weren't dropped, since there weren't charges to drop.

Jesus Christ, it was major news. Beeb. Al-Jazeera. Leftie press. Pick your source.

Not my fault if they don't understand the Swedish legal system. (Though you should reexamine the sources and note that the Swedish Prosecution Authority never mentions dropping charges.)

BBC:

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said the chief prosecutor had come to the decision that Mr Assange was not suspected of rape but did not give any further explanation.

Not suspected.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest.

Not subject to arrest.

In a brief statement Eva Finne said: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

No reason to suspect.

SFGate:

According to Aljazeera, Eva Finne, Sweden’s chief prosecutor, Julian Assange was “no longer wanted.”

No longer wanted.

Never mentions dropping of "charges".

Assange has never been charged. That's one of the major points of contention concerning the use of the EAW. And since he's never been charged, no charges have ever been dropped.

As has been shown: The allegation is that he raped a sleeping woman.

No, that's what has been downgraded to an allegation of "molestation" because the woman herself would not call it "rape".

Wrong again, as the EAW shows.

4. Rape

On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

The three other offences were against the woman called [AA] in the EAW. She's the one speaking out in the article you linked to, where she says

– Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt.

- The other woman wanted to report him for rape.

[Gravlen]

Sweden closed the case on Assange (who apparently didn't wear a condom during sex), then opened it again when faced with US pressure.

Factual errors striked out. Vital facts are missing. Try again.

Wait... You are telling me Sweden had unprotected sex?
With whom?

Finland.

[Gravlen]

There is no actual credible (i.e. non-tinfoil hat) source for this, and nobody has managed to explain why, if they US really wished to extradite him, they wouldn't try to do it from the UK rather than Sweden.

Not to mention that neither the UK nor Sweden can legally extradite someone if they will face the death penalty.

Mark weisbrots column in todays guardian sums up the rational quite nicely.
Techdirts colun today also does a good job. http://Www.techdirt.com

The odd thing is, Weisbrot doesn't actually provide a rationale. The closest he gets is to claim that Sweden and the UK will collaborate in the persecution of a journalist for the sake of expediency.

He does not explain why, if they US really wished to extradite him, they wouldn't try to do it from the UK rather than Sweden.

[Laerod]

Wait... You are telling me Sweden had unprotected sex?
With whom?

All of Europe. Just check out pre-2006 one and two Euro coins.

[Gravlen]

And they did agree to have sex with him (that is not disputed, which is why the word "rape" fits rather dubiously here), which was stupid.

So consent to sex once means consent to sex for all eternity, even while asleep...

BC was stupid to keep insisting that her story be treated as a "rape" charge: the argument treats a sexual encounter as an exercise in contract law, where his use of a condom was an essential precondition to her consent, but could she really expect to prove he broke the condom intentionally, even if that were true?

She wants her story to be treated as a case of rape, since having sexual intercourse with sleeping people usually is counted as rape.

4. Rape

On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

[...]so I can only speculate[...]

And speculate you do, facts be damned.

The prosecutor then was stupid because, having been disappointed to find out the thinness of the BC case, she got so excited learning that AD had come forward that she went to court with her case and got an arrest warrant, apparently before actually talking to AD.

More speculation.

Learning that Assange had not actually come into AD's bedroom uninvited and assaulted her in her sleep when she didn't even know he was there, but rather that they had already had a bout of sex when he started up again while she was too dozy to express that she wasn't appreciative, is something a prosecutor really ought to get straight first.

By all accounts, she did get it straight - what the first prosecutor saw was a claim that [SW] had woken up to see Assange penetrating her.

And that's what he's being investigated for presently.

Issuing a warrant and then having to retract it the very next day, because the alleged victim won't sign on to your version of events, would be embarrassing to any prosecution, but particularly when there is international attention glaring.

Ah, the joys of speculation. Or are we over to fantasy now?

Refiling the charges was not necessarily stupid, but Sweden did need to persuade absolutely everyone who is persuadable (there are of course a lot of people whose minds are set in concrete on either side) that this had nothing nothing nothing to do with the international politics.

Heh, no. The Swedish Prosecution Authority only had a duty to follow the laws on the books. Their task is not to persuade people who're uninvolved in the case.

But the British government has been totally stupid in not just washing its hands, "OK, it's between Ecuador and Sweden now, but if you get no agreement with Sweden, of course we have to arrest him any time he sets foot outside that little apartment." What was the UK's stake in this? Nothing, it would seem, unless Cameron absolutely wants to prove that he is more of a US lapdog than Blair ever was.

Are you kidding?

The British government is scared that this could set an example for other fugitives. They do not want the London embassies to become some sort of safe haven for criminals - as Assange demonstrates by remaining in the embassy in defiance of a European arrest warrant.

[Ethel mermania]

Mark weisbrots column in todays guardian sums up the rational quite nicely.
Techdirts colun today also does a good job. http://Www.techdirt.com

The odd thing is, Weisbrot doesn't actually provide a rationale. The closest he gets is to claim that Sweden and the UK will collaborate in the persecution of a journalist for the sake of expediency.
He does not explain why, if they US really wished to extradite him, they wouldn't try to do it from the UK rather than Sweden.

The US has not charged him yet, I would guess they will after thry get manning convicted. Sweden has not charged him yet either, how did they get the arrest warrent when there are no charges pending?

[Laerod]

The UK is being extremely hypoctirical here. The US and UK are acting like authoritarian states, all because someone had the audacity to do REAL journalism. It's quite disgusting.

Dude. Ecuador. Fucking Ecuador. Fucking Correa.