UK threatens Ecuador to raid their Embassy over Assange

It's of no conseqence if he trusts them or not. It's not how the system works. He doesn't get the choice. No one does. What Assange may or may not think about any of it isn't actually relevant.

I think an interesting comparison could be made with the recent US case of habouring a chinese criminal... and the pressure countries placed on china to get the guy to the US... seems like people do get the choice... when you break bail conditions
 
No, it's not suspicious. Men and women consent to all kinds of things. The fact that now, after the fact, he is claiming he did not consent to the charges raises no suspicion.

No, it's quite fitting. After all the withdrawal of consent to the sex act by the woman was also made after the fact, apparently...

Well it is utter hypocrisy by Assange, since he is only been charged, not found guilty yet, so he just needs to get the case over and done with. Considering that the two women are Swedish, America has no claim to be able to extradite him. If he is found guilty he will serve time in a Swedish prison.

The ecuadorian government asked the swedes if they could guarantee that there would be no extradition to the US. They reportedly refuse to offer any such guarantee.

They did not do so while he was in Sweden.

The US government needed time to make a case against him?

There is no charge in Sweden. He's wanted for "helping the prosecutor's office in their enquiries", after which the prosecutor will decide whether there is grounds for arrest, or not, in which case the charges are dropped. And what he's suspected of most likely would result in a fine and compensation pay. There might be a very short jail sentance, at worst, but time spent in custody (even if it's been entirely self-inflicted like in Assange's case) is usually deducted, so almost certainly no jail-time.

But but but... he raped (cue: horror, shock) that woman, didn't he? Why are swedes pro-raper, treating the crime he is suspected of as if it were trivial?

Btw, Sweden has or has not actively collaborated in kidnapping people from its territory, to deliver them to the US, without any judicial process of oversight?
It's not paranoia if they are really out to get you...

EDIT: One more thing, it actually wouldn't surprise me all that much if Sweden did comply with a future extradition order from the US government - I wouldn't say that this was likely, but it's certainly plausible. But I don't see this as any reason for Assange not to face charges for rape in Sweden. Again, we're all equal under the law... If this was anyone else, he'd already be in Sweden by now.

I say, the chinese ought to have some woman press rape charges against all those pesky activists exiled in foreign countries. Then they'd call for their extradition to investigate those charges, of course. And after that, seeing as they were there already, they might as well thrown them in prison for whatever else they wanted.

Doesn't take a genius to see through that plan, does it?
 
The US government needed time to make a case against him?
If they wanted to do that, they could stall him on our end. And it doesn't explain why they set up false charges in the first place so that Assange would flee.
And lastly there's still the issue that Assange fled to one of the nations most compliant with extradition to the United States in the world.
 
I think it is clear that Assange is afraid of something more than just extradition and trial in Sweden. Even in case if he will be convicted and imprisoned over alleged rape (which is unlikely given that such thing is difficult to prove), his situation will not be much worse than he has now - being stuck in one building for unknown amount of time. If the problem was only in rape accusation, he should simply go for trial, hire a good lawyer and get acquitted. His current situation is obviously not the one he would like to be at, and he probably has good reasons to do what he is doing.
 
The case, with all these developments, is odd. One is left wondering if there's something more that all these actors know but we the public do not. Because there's odd behavior from every one, flop initial sloppy charges, to continually fleeing extradition, to granting political asylum over the issue, to making threats against the immunity of embassies...
 
Btw, Sweden has or has not actively collaborated in kidnapping people from its territory, to deliver them to the US, without any judicial process of oversight?
The 2004 "Egyptian Affair".

Egyptians Ahmed Agiza and Mohamad Alzery were fingered by US authorities as "Bad People". According to hole-in-the-head legislation passed jointly by the EU member states after 9/11, according to which the EU would not just bend over backwards, but short-circuit any brain function, it was decided that when the US pointed people it wanted out, these should just be handed over, no questions asked.

So, on the night of 18 December 2001 Agiza and Alzery were handed over to these beyond-the-pale US operatives flying anonymous planes all over the world, picking people up. The US then handed them over to the Egyptian government. In Egypt a military court simply released Alzery (much to everyone's surprise, but speaking volumes about the quality of the information the US was acting), but hit Agiza with a 25 years prison sentence.

This broke as a massive scandal in Swedish media in 2004. The formally highest responsible was then Foreign Minister Anna Lindh. However, since Anna Lindh had already been murdered, no responsibility could be exacted from her. (Worse, she became the perfect fall-guy to peg the majority of the blame on.)

Still, Sweden has been formally sanctioned by the UN over this in 2005. And in 2007 the Swedish government certainly admitted fault, and awarded Alzery and Agiza about 300 000€ each in compensation. Ahmed Agiza has since then also applied for and been awarded permanent residence in Sweden.

What definitely has stopped, is EU member states generally being quite this helpful towards unaccountable US representatives.

Thankfully, we are no longer in the heady days of how things worked immediately after 9/11.
 
I say, the chinese ought to have some woman press rape charges against all those pesky activists exiled in foreign countries. Then they'd call for their extradition to investigate those charges, of course. And after that, seeing as they were there already, they might as well thrown them in prison for whatever else they wanted.

Doesn't take a genius to see through that plan, does it?

I've seen "Socialist Sweden" be ludicrously compared to "Communist China" before, but never quite like this...
 
If they wanted to do that, they could stall him on our end. And it doesn't explain why they set up false charges in the first place so that Assange would flee.
And lastly there's still the issue that Assange fled to one of the nations most compliant with extradition to the United States in the world.

Flee and fled?... or went home after the charges were dropped.... he was already in England when he was "detained in absentia" when the charges were re-instated... its not really an issue to go back "home" ... if it was he would have gone to Ecuador
 
The 2004 "Egyptian Affair".
This broke as a massive scandal in Swedish media in 2004. The formally highest responsible was then Foreign Minister Anna Lindh. However, since Anna Lindh had already been murdered, no responsibility could be exacted from her. (Worse, she became the perfect fall-guy to peg the majority of the blame on.)

You might want to mention that Lindh was not murdered by a muslim terrorist out for revenge but by a member of the swedish extreme rightwing milieu.
 
You might want to mention that Lindh was not murdered by a muslim terrorist out for revenge but by a member of the swedish extreme rightwing milieu.
He was?
Mijailović was for some time a citizen of both Serbia and Montenegro and of Sweden, but after the crime applied to have his Swedish citizenship revoked. His application was granted by the Swedish National Migration Board on 20 September 2004; however this did not have any effect on the judicial process.

On 2 December 2004, Mijailović was sentenced by the Supreme Court of Sweden to life imprisonment for the killing of Anna Lindh, overruling the appeals court judgement. He has since attempted to have himself relocated to a Serbian prison, expressing fear for his life. As of 2010, these attempts have been without success.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mijailo_Mijailovi%C4%87

Although the killing of Ms Lindh is not thought to have been politically motivated in the usual sense, Mijailovic is believed to have been obsessed by several famous people and allegedly hated the Swedish foreign minister for backing the Nato air strikes against Belgrade during the 1999 Kosovo war.
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3375473.stm

A Serbian nationalist you mean?
 
You might want to mention that Lindh was not murdered by a muslim terrorist out for revenge but by a member of the swedish extreme rightwing milieu.
Her murder's just a concidence. There's no connection, I can't see why someone would assume one?
 
The case, with all these developments, is odd. One is left wondering if there's something more that all these actors know but we the public do not. Because there's odd behavior from every one, flop initial sloppy charges, to continually fleeing extradition, to granting political asylum over the issue, to making threats against the immunity of embassies...

we can only hope someone starts a web site that leaks these details ... Oh ... never mind.
 
The latest news on the Assange case:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19868355
"I accept that they trusted Mr Assange to surrender himself as required. I accept that they followed the proceedings and made necessary arrangements to remain in contact with him," he said.

"However, they failed in their basic duty, to ensure his surrender. They must have understood the risk and the concerns of the courts.

"Both this court and the High Court assessed that there were substantial grounds to believe the defendant would abscond, and that the risk could only be met by stringent conditions including the sureties."

Vaughan Smith, a friend of Mr Assange, addressed Westminster Magistrates Court last week on behalf of the nine people, who put up £140,000 between them.

He said all those who had offered sureties were "convinced that they have done and are doing the right thing".

The chief magistrate decided each of the backers had to pay part of the sum originally pledged, under the 1980 Magistrates Court Act.

They were as follows: retired professor Tricia David £10,000, Lady Caroline Evans £15,000, Joseph Farrell £3,500, Sarah Harrison £3,500, journalist Phillip Knightley £15,000, friend Sarah Saunders £12,000, friend Vaughan Smith £12,000, scientist Sir John Sulston £15,000 and Baroness Tracy Worcester £7,500.

I hope he's comfortable.
 
Top Bottom