UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
No, harboring Julian Assange is not just like shooting at police officers outside the embassy, but preventing the host country from continuing to follow the steps of its agreements about accused defendants with another country is also not the normal activity of a diplomatic representative. There is a long tradition of dissidents seeking asylum in foreign embassies, and that tradition seems to be longest in Latin America, but that can also have consequences for the embassy's relationship with the host country.
AFTER EDIT:
By the way, it has been a very, very long time (since before I was born) since the United States federal government has imposed capital punishment for the crimes of treason or espionage (which, yes, could be a basis for capital punishment under federal law).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unite...
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...
Nowadays, it is routine for persons who revealed secret information to the harm of the United States to be imprisoned, sometimes for a term of years rather than for life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies#American...
Simply put, even IF Julian Assange were to have to leave Sweden after going from Britain to Sweden for questioning, and even IF Julian Assange were then charged with espionage by the United States, and even IF he were then convicted of espionage, it is quite doubtful that Assange would be executed. Most likely, he would just (if ALL of the hypothetical events happened) end up spending a lot of time in the Supermax prison in Colorado.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Flo...
Perhaps if there were Ecuadorian charges against Assange to which he could plead guilty and thus be a fugitive from international law, which would obviously require he be sent to Ecuador to serve time before going to Sweden for questioning.
I wonder how Britain would feel about it's international obligations under those circumstances.
Let's face it if Assange does go to Ecuador then the ambassador is going with him.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tec...
[3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in...
[4] http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b...
I am not arguing with your statement (you have said nothing wrong) but I'd like to head off the potential "Obama/Democrats is/are the problem!" rants.
The only major difference is that Obama always really wanted to catch Bin Laden and Bush -- openly -- didn't care. Now that that's over, he seems to want to run for Bush's fourth term.
Obama tried to close guantanamo for years (see politifact) before giving up. He tried to end the trickle-down economics that Bush had (such as ending tax cuts for the rich) but conceded to the opposition somewhere around the US debt ceiling crisis.
His administration's technology initiatives are far ahead of Bush's (witness http://data.gov for instance, and requirement for all agencies to have an API).
His social programs are better thought out and actually save us money. Compare for example Bush's Medicare act in 2003 vs the CBO's assessment of Obama's Affordable Care Act which actually will save a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Or compare Bush's "gotta go cya later" bailout to the TARP that happened under Obama. His administration even set up http://recovery.gov to "track the money". Or compare the success that they had in bailing out the automakers. I would say that this administration is much more conscientious than the one with Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney and co.
Where Bush basically attacked Iraq with no emergency or multinational support ("coalition of the willing" was a sham), US involvement in Libya under Obama is closer to a Just War in that there is an emergency (dictator bombing his citizens), and it was also merely part of a multinational response, including a UN resolution, to a situation decried by human rights groups.
Where I agree with you is Obama's cavalier attitude toward executive privilege and rights granted by the NDAA. This represents an erosion of CIVIL liberties and security in America, which I am not happy about.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Still, I want to say 3 things:
1) After getting into office, he actually addressed the fiscal and economic crisis that was developing, and we can definitely say that today the charts are a little higher than in 2008. That took some re-prioritizing.
2) All politicians promise something. Just hear Romney's promises: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlnaYOv0DZY ... so believing everyone's promises is silly. For me it's more about how competent the guy is to actually achieve/maintain the stuff I think we need as a country. And even so, I don't think the president can do that much these days. You should worry about the Senate, they have the lowest approval rating ever I think.
3) He has made some major reforms, the medical reform is a big one, perhaps one day he may tackle immigration reform. Also the JOBS act is bringing about some much-needed financial reform, but I can't give all the credit to Obama on this one. Actually here is what I think about the direction this country is headed: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=108
As of the bill's passage into law in 2010, CBO estimated the legislation would reduce the deficit by $143 billion[185] over the first decade, but half of that was due to expected premiums for the C.L.A.S.S. Act, which has since been abandoned.[186] Although the CBO generally does not provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period (because of the great degree of uncertainty involved in the data) it decided to do so in this case at the request of lawmakers, and estimated a second decade deficit reduction of $1.2 trillion.[180][187] ...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordab...
All grand jury proceedings are secret. This is a normal part of the US legal system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_Stat...
Citizens too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Rahman_al-Awlaki (16 y.o. minor US citizen)
Execution without judicial review.
Its actions have shown in the last 10+ years that is not the case. It has detained, tortured and killed people extra-judicially. Even its own citizens. Making any appeals to the the quality of it judicial process is a bit silly at the moment.
So in other words it might not make sense to be afraid of that particular threat "charge of espionage" but it is not unreasonable for him to fear in general.
Remember the case how that Russian ex-KGB agent was poisoned with Polonium? There is little doubt it was the Russians doing it and they also wanted to make sure there would be little doubt (except hard evidence) that they did, so that everyone learns to fear opposing or criticizing them in the future.
It seems to me Assange and Manning are prime candidates for being turned into example for all to see.
The response of the grandparent was 'no' because US legal system can't technically touch him. My response to that was that I am not exactly sure if the world should trust US in light of its actions in the last 10 years.
You can't conduct an experiment to figure things out, if you can't then come back and conduct more experiment because the first one killed you.
There is little doubt it was the Russians
The most obvious suspect is oligarch Boris Berezovsky, a London refugee from Russia, accused of embezzlement at home, who is waging a fierce propaganda war with the current Russian government.
http://www.rt.com/news/berezovsky-litvinenko-murder-allegati...
Julius and Ethel are the young couple who were executed for espionage in 1953. This was at the height of McCarthyism. Most of us agree McCarthy was a little, ahem, extreme. It's an interesting story and younger readers should check it out. Was Ethel Rosenberg really a spy? What did she do? The Wikipedia page has some links to further reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Rosenberg
Reading over the BBC's timeline of the Assange case really leaves one in a state of bewilderment. The "rape" story was shared with between two women and then with a journalist? The allegations were dropped. Then reinstated? He's being extradicted for some allegations? Allegations, not charges. And those have nothing to do with leaking documents and espionage? WTF?
Are all the newspapers innocent in this? They spread the cables far and wide. It took more than just a disillusioned private and some nerds sniffing Tor exit nodes. The papers are still attracting readers and advertising dollars using this whole incident as a catapult.
The whole thing is really bizarre if you come at it objectively.
It's important to know that as the article points out Embassies do not enjoy full extraterritorial status, and contrary to popular belief are not sovereign.
The practice of the host country entering only with permission is based in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and a violation of this would likely have no real material effect. That convention also requires the host country to protect the embassy and other rules. It is unlikely that the UK's allies would object, and even more unlikely that the country in question here would mount any serious diplomatic or military response.
As always power benefits the powerful.
"The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.
It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange."
If they do that it wouldn't be an act of war, it would be legal. It definitely sets a terrible precedent though and even if it's legal Ecuador might interpret it as an act of war.
It would surely be less effort and risk to lift him from the roof by helicopter and whisk him to a waiting jet James Bond style.
The second option seems far more likely to me.
I can't imagine Britain would be willing to risk the integrity of its own embassies in that way over Assange. It sounds like sabre-rattling, nothing more.
Consider that they did not even try to enter an embassy over the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher by someone at the Libyan embassy - a murder that achieved infamy in Britain. The Metropolitain Police laid siege to the Libyan embassy for 11 days and the government severed all diplomatic ties with Libya. But they did not try to enter.
If Thatcher was not prepared to do it, I very much doubt the current government would be willing to deal with the fallout.
I think some will disagree with the reason for asylum. I don't think there is any doubt that this is political. This is not about rape accusations. This is very political.
>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, after a group of Islamist students and militants took over the American Embassy in Tehran in support of the Iranian Revolution.
bingo. that's why, in part, this is clearly about something other than the alleged sex incidents. it's pretty obviously about Wikileaks, trying to impede/stop/punish it and him.
The women accusing Assange have a fundamental human right to due process. It is extremely unusual for someone to deny that process by fleeing into a foreign embassy. Wikileaks adds to the press, but it is noteworthy regardless of that.
This case was pursued by the prosecutor at the instigation of Swedish police, after a previous prosecutor had initially closed the case stating that there was no indication anything illegal had taken place.
The women in question does not under Swedish law legally have any say in whether or not the case is pursued or not - if a prosecutor believes a crime has taken place, it is their duty to pursue the case in the interest of the state, not on behalf of the women.
(What does make this case stink, though, is that one of the women in question at one point prior to the case against Assange published a blog post about leveraging this exact method to "legally" take revenge against a lover who she found had was involved with someone else)
that's rude. You may not have intended it, but that's how that sounds.
on a related note, I'm feeling HN is getting increasely overwhelmed by rude comments. something about the culture and the kind of people it attracts, perhaps an increasingly young male techie demographic, dunno.
Well, not really amusing; that is the wrong word. There is nothing amusing about accusing somebody of "all but justifying raping women". That is a serious allegation.
That is not a justification of rape. You could argue that that it conveys some sort of implied approval (and I am likely to disagree there, unless you can come up with a better supporting argument than namecalling) but it is not a justification.
Now, before you decide to accuse me of justifying rape as well, allow me to state this explicitly: I do not approve of the actions as portrayed in that narrative.
To say that it isn't technically rape could mean a few things. It could mean that it's worse than rape or at least equivalent to rape, or it could mean that it's not as bad as rape. But if it's just as bad as rape or even worse, there would be no point to the remark at all, especially in a series of comments meant to defend Assange. Obviously, the intention was to say that this action is something less than rape.
To say that this particular type of rape is something less than rape might not justify it, but it does minimize it in such a way that denies the basic agency, dignity, and human rights of the victim. It's a hideous, misogynistic notion. (That's not a supporting argument, by the way, it's a conclusion.)
Phil, have Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén said the sex was rape?
For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads promoting that Assange is a rapist, that women have accused him of rape, and that he is charged with rape. Yet, despite being requested for citations showing your accusations are factual, you have failed to do so for two years now.
Not at all. I simply think the Swedish justice system should fully process these accusations, and whatever outcome or verdict is reached will simply be whatever it is.
I am dismayed that in many rape cases, it's easier to perform a character assassination on the alleged victims and intimidate them from testifying. I'm worried that people with some sort of political sympathy for Assange due to his work with WikiLeaks will engage in this kind of character assassination and intimidation. Fortunately, the Swedish prosecutors seem to have collected depositions already, so Assange's alleged victims might not have to go through the agony of reliving their experiences on a worldwide stage only to be called liars or sluts, or to be accused of being paid off by the CIA.
Still, there's a very high chance that even if Assange is guilty, he will not be convicted. I simply hope that if he is guilty, he is convicted, and that if he is innocent, that he is not only acquitted but fully exonerated. No innocent man deserves that kind of cloud over his head.
Unfortunately, Assange isn't really helping matters.
> For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads...
You seem to be keeping very close tabs on my activity on HN. If you had an email address in your profile I would ask you about this privately, but you seem determined to retain your pseudonymity, so I will ask publicly. Why exactly are you so interested in my comments in particular?
Your comments on the rape sounded familiar and I looked through past threads on Assange and was surprised to notice that you are the one bringing up and promoting the idea that the women have accused him of rape and he has been charged with rape, both which are false. The search also turned up that you are interested in the topic of rape in general and discuss it across the internet. I have no interest in your general interest in the topic of rape, but I do want to point out that your claims about Assange are bald faced lies and you have an agenda.
It would be one thing if you had heard in passing that the women had accused him of rape and he was being charged with rape and mistakenly thought it was correct. But you have a history of promoting these claims and during this time have not provided evidence either that he has been charged with rape or that either woman has claimed to have been raped. Thus you do know what the facts are, and you are intentionally choosing to lie here. There is nothing innocent about your assertions and your propaganda tactics are far from naive.
Your comments about "rape cases" where people blame the victims, "intimidate them from testifying" and engage in "character assassination" are more of your attempts to falsely promote and assert that these women have said they were raped and that he was been charged with rape, but then adds on a new accusation - there is a conspiracy to harm them right here on Hacker News! Who here is intimidating them from testifying? Name them! Rape has not been accused by the women or charged, so there is no rape case. There is no character assassination against the women to repeatedly ask you to show your evidence that rape has been charged, or that the women have accused him of rape. Cite specifically the character assassination that has occurred here. Show your evidence. Asking you to provide evidence of your claims is not character assassination against women, nor is it blaming victims, nor is it intimidating witnesses in a trial, and it is absurd rhetoric to claim these things.
droithomme, has Philip Welch ever said your interest in his past comments on this issue was stalking? You have failed for one hour to provide a single citation showing your accusation is factual!
> you are the one bringing up and promoting the idea that the women have accused him of rape
It's all me, huh? If Google is to be trusted, the word "rape" has been used to describe the accusations against Assange by over a thousand news sources today alone. I promise you I'm not responsible for that.
> The search also turned up that you are interested in the topic of rape in general and discuss it across the internet. I have no interest in your general interest in the topic of rape
Now that's just plain bad faith on your part. My interest is in the basic human rights and dignity of all people. Some women get raped, and as a culture we do a bad job of handling it. We do a bad job of handling when men get raped, too.
> your propaganda tactics are far from naive
You give me too much credit, and yet too little at the same time.
> there is a conspiracy to harm them right here on Hacker News!
I'm not the one spinning conspiracy theories. I'm not the one calling people propaganda artists. I'm not the one who thinks it's all a CIA frame job intended to somehow make it easier to spirit Julian Assange away to Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, it's sadly a common thing for those accused of rape and their supporters to commit character assassination and intimidation against the alleged victims in order to undermine the criminal justice system. I'm far from the first or only person to notice this. I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this, I'm just disappointed that, as always, these tactics will interfere with the ability of the justice system to decide once and for all whether or not Julian Assange is guilty.
In the Polanski case, his lawyer had arranged a plea bargain, then, later at trial, the judge suddenly reneged without explanation. In the Assange case, he had already been questioned, the allegations were dropped, then suddenly a couple days of media coverage pass and the allegations are reinstated.
Not to imply either is a case of no wrongdoing, but in each case the accused initially faced the allegations, then something changed and scared the accused enough to go on the run.
The victim in the Polanski case has all but forgiven him, but does anyone disagree he would be crazy to ever set foot in the US again? The prosecutors office seems to have a very long memory and an uncanny ability to hold a grudge.
It's his story that, upon extradition to Sweden, the Swedes will turn around and hand him over to the US to be Gitmo'ed with extreme prejudice, but that's all it is thus far: his story. That said, it's certainly plausible; he's mightily pissed off the US government, which does seem to have a habit — particularly lately — of treating people that embarrass it rather less than gently. It would also explain how het-up the Swedes are to have him extradited, and the fact that Britain is willing to violate the Ecuadorian embassy (which, FTR, is not sovereign territory) in order to retrieve him. But idiotically zealous investigation of alleged rape (let alone lesser charges) isn't exactly unheard of, either.
Either way, however much good Assange has done the world by exposing the stuff he and WikiLeaks have exposed, he is an attention-whore, and his motives are pretty broadly suspect. Personally, I'd vastly prefer he not be subject to "extraordinary rendition" — not because of anything he's done, but because I don't think anyone should be shipped off to countries where they "interrogate" with rectally inserted broken beer bottles (to reference just one of the many stories that have bubbled up from that kind of thing). But that's just me.
If he was subject to extraordinary rendition, they'd have him by now. That's the whole point of extraordinary rendition.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how well-protected and cautious he is, and how much cooperation the renditors can get from the local government.
That sounds pretty silly. He was only a couple of hours away by plane, he is surrounded by media. Runs a talk show. Claiming they can't question him is just ridiculous and make them seem like they certainly have other ideas than just simple questioning for not wearing a condom.
If one was a misogynist who thought women lost their basic human rights as soon as their clothes were off, one could certainly argue that.
I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.
> It outright justifies rape.
I never said that. Quote me where I said that. Again, you can't.
I'm very careful with my wording. You are probably falling into the trap of getting emotional about something that wasn't said, something that lives only in your own mind. Unfortunately this is one of those topics that never fails to draw people out who commit that kind of mistake.
Also, I'd love to meet you sometime for a friendly coffee somewhere. Always good to meet fellow HN'ers, and as a bonus we can clear up any misunderstandings.
I never claimed you did say that. But you introduced the notion as something "one could argue", and the only thing I'm attacking is that notion, not you personally. That's more than you can say for yourself, incidentally.
That you took it personally says far more about you than it does me. When one puts forward a notion on the basis of "one could argue", sometimes it means it's a notion they're not especially attached to but they think is worthy of consideration. Other times, it means they're evading personal criticism for believing in that notion. In the first case, one would not feel so worked up and personally attacked by having the notion criticized; in the second case, they would. Your reaction, I'm afraid, has given you away.
You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says.
BINGO. thank you. there are other intelligent, sane people on this website.
You seem quite eager to call people misogynists. It sounds to me like you enjoy it.
Someone pointed out at the Guardian's site last night that the warrant presented to the UK courts actually is worded in a very contorted way to claim an allegation on rape on the basis that one of the women was in a "state of sleep" without actually stating whether she was asleep or half asleep and whether or not there's a claim that she was not consenting or unable to consent.
If she was claiming to be "half asleep", which is what has been stated previously in the Swedish press, and aware of what was going on, she might very well have been in position to legally consent, and there's to my knowledge not been a claim in Sweden that this in itself is what gave rise to rape claims, but that the rape claim was predicated on him not using a condom in that instance, despite her previous insistence that he had to.
It could be just an innocent bad wording, but given the rest of this case, and how this curiously misrepresents the claims presented in Sweden, this does seem rather odd. It would have been trivial to precisely express the claims presented in Sweden in unambiguous terms in far fewer words than they used.
These are definitely allegations of sexual assault, and the described behavior treads perilously close to what everyone would agree is rape.
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p...
Both statements also appears to have been made in interviews conducted in a manner that was a clear violation of Swedish police procedures. For starters, neither were recorded, and at least part of the statements were taken by a personal friend of one of the women.
There are good grounds for being cautious about whether the contents of the leaked statements is an accurate portrayal of what these women told the police at all, much less whether or not these women are willing to stand behind them.
Even if I were to only accept the parts his own lawyers have conceded, the statements do paint the picture of someone who is quite a bit of an asshole. Maybe he is a bit of a misogynist, though I think it's more likely he is "just" a bit narcissistic and didn't really take anyones feelings into account. Add in some paranoia - even if people are after him, he comes across as believing they care more than I think they do.
I just think there are a lot of things about this case that are fishy to the point where there's good reason to be extremely suspicious about the motivations of some of the people involved, even if one discounts the idea of US involvement. He might very well be guilty for what I know, but that still doesn't mean there's nothing weird going on with how the whole situation has been handled.
Secondly, he claims that he will be extradited to the US if he is brought to Sweden. How exactly would he suddenly become more likely to try to flee if they decide to charge him? He is already claiming that going to Sweden means a risk of facing the death penalty in the US.
In that context it seems ludicrous to think that interviewing him and then charging him would somehow increase his resolve try to avoid extradition, or that this has been the case for a very long time.
It is not like he would have considered voluntarily setting foot on Swedish soil from any point over the past year or more. A charge would not have made that more or less likely.
Meanwhile, a formal charge would remove at least some reason to question the motivations of the Swedish prosecutor, and it would make it much harder for Ecuador to justify asylum given that they have publicly used this as part of their process for determining whether or not to give asylum.
As for that. At the moment he is holed up in a small embassy, while the Metropolitan police is outside, waiting for a chance to grab him.
Yet the Swedish police still refuse to interview him, while making up bogus excuses for why they don't. They could have stated the reason you suggest: That if they make the decision to charge him, they want to be able to take him into custody immediately under the circumstances. That reason is still a poor excuse, but they've not even tried to use even that.
If he is a flight risk in his current location, he is a flight risk whether or not they interview or charge him - his only realistic means of escape is if he gets asylum from Ecuador and Ecuador finds a way of getting him on a plane, whether smuggling him in an oversized diplomatic pouch or convincing the UK to give him free passage. Either way, this doesn't become any harder or easier depending on whether or not Swedish authorities interview him.
The Swedish might not be the only ones acting irrationally. But if they're not acting irrationally, it would imply they have a hidden agenda. If their agenda is what they claim it is, then yes, they are acting irrationally. Either alternative is pretty bad.
OK, maybe it's a little irrational that the Swedish prosecutor doesn't want to bend over backwards and do it Assange's way just to humor his paranoid delusions. But it's not suspicious.
Also:
> woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent
By definition that's rape.
I disagree. If the prosecutor has no case, Assange has - rightfully or not - every reason to wonder why they are pursuing him in this manner, and every reason to then worry about what the underlying motivation is. He might be more paranoid than justified in how he interprets it, but if I was in his shoes and a prosecutor acted the way the Swedish prosecutor has in this case, and I knew I hadn't done anything wrong (or thought I hadn't), I'd be worried something was up and be far more concerned about that than a potential Swedish jail sentence.
If the prosecutor actually has a case, Assange presumably knows he did what is claimed, and in that case he would have more reason to believe early on that his "worst case" scenario might be a very short stay in a low security, comfortable Swedish prison - the crimes he is wanted for questioning about have very short sentencing guidelines in Sweden.
In terms of extradition, if I was him I'd not be so concerned about legal, above board extradition. I would be concerned about the fact that Sweden has admitted to, and have been censured by the UN for, having violated their own laws as well as international treaties to participate in rendition arranged by the US of two Egyptians to Egypt where they were subsequently tortured. If they were willing to do that with some relatively low level targets, at the behest of the US, then there is every reason to worry they'd be willing to be "flexible" about giving Assange to the US.
The odds of them taking the political fallout from that in this case might be small, but then this is not just about what Assange might objectively have reason to fear - a lot of it boils down to what his actual, subjective fears are. I see little reason to doubt that Assange personally genuinely fear the US is after him and that he believes he is important enough that given its past history with rendition that Sweden might very well be easy to push into handing over him too.
He might very well make irrational choices because of that fear without there being any implication of guilt behind those choices.
Then again, he might also be guilty and just not want to face it.
Point is, this isn't nearly as clear cut as some would like to think it is.
What's the priority? Question him to find out what happened or bring him to Sweden?
This, ultimately, is why this should be seen as a "non-case" and therefore just an excuse for the US/UK/Swedish government to hassle Assange and therefore Wikileaks.
Phil, do either of the women, Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén say the sex was rape?
We're deep into "if you repeat it often enough people will believe it's true" territory.
Emphasis added. Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p...
Please note that "having sex with [someone] without [their] consent" is the definition of rape.
1. Neither woman has stated Assange raped her.
2. Assange has not been charged with rape.
Here are some lies:
1. The women state that Assange raped them.
2. Assange has been charged with rape.
Here is the transcript of the interview referenced in the Naomi Wolf attack article that you have cited.
http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2010/12/20/naomi_wolf_vs_jac...
But damnit, I giggled like an idiot.
Sure. Tehran, November 4, 1979.
So.
Forget all the legal nuances. We have to answer that question. So what then? So Britain blows everyone the middle finger and declared a war on Ecuador. Just like US invaded Iraq (physically).
Who is going to protect Ecuador? Is Ecuador going to suicide its soldiers by landing in Britain to protect Assange? Some Latin American countries will issue a very strongly worded statement and maybe some other countries will say something, and then I bet you nothing happens.
- #Breaking Wikileaks founder Julian Assange granted asylum in Ecuador
- #BREAKING: British Government won't guarantee Julian Assange safe passage to airport to leave for Ecuador #assange
- Clarification - Ecuador wants to give Assange asylum, but Britain is refusing to grant safe passage #breaking #wikileaks
- Ecuador Foreign Minister says they received a letter from British govt threatening to enter embassy & arrest Assange if he's not handed over
http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the...
Whenever I see a story here about Julian Assange I just sigh. I don't understand how on the one hand people can be absolutely appalled when stories about sexism at conference, in the workplace, etc etc come along and then take the sort of attitudes we see here.
Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women. These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this.
Maybe, just maybe this is a big fit up from people 'out to get' Assange. But you also have to concede that both the simplest explanation, and one not beyond the realms of possibility, is that these women are genuinely making these accusations. They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition.
Most people accused of what Assange does do not have the luxury of fleeing to a foreign embassy. I don't see why it is so controversial that Assange should go and face these allegations. Supporters of Assange really can't have their cake and eat it.
You may have missed this bit in the article, at the very end:
"An offer to the Swedish authorities by Ecuador for investigators to interview Mr Assange inside the embassy, was rejected."
If they did charge him at Ecuadorian embassy and then he refuses to leave, Ecuador would feel a lot more pressure and Assange would lose a lot of support. But now that it's clear that the Swedish prosecutor's blatant disregard for immediately interviewing him in favour of him being disadvantage in Sweden, there's even more support for Assange and Ecuador.
They have been offered many times over by now, but have refused. Its refusal is probably going to cause a major diplomatic incident between two different sovereign nations that has the potential to violate some serious stuff.
Does any of this sound, if not normal, even remotely reasonable to you?
If the prosecutor had any real interest in seeing justice for these women any time soon, he would have done said interview months and months and months ago. Instead, if Julian Assange is guilty, then it's been an unnecessarily long drawn out process for the victims. Instead, the prosecutor is saying by this that he has no real interest in the case, but is just trying to get Julian Assange to Sweden, for easier extradition to the US. It's pretty known, through The Pirate Bay not least of all, that the Swedish justice system is at least a bit under the control of the US. Not unlike New Zealand's.
> if they did interview Assange in the embassy and decided they wanted to charge him he would just walk out happily?
How does that matter at this stage? Let's assume that Sweden does find him guilty, and it's pretty likely that they will (guilty or innocent)... Julian Assange will lose at least a bit of support once he is a convicted criminal, so there's a win for the prosecutor over the current situation there too.
Edit: Furthermore, they sent a letter, which says "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy."
The only way that this can happen is by invoking the "Under National Security" clause of said act. If Julian Assange is arrested in the embassy, then the UK must consider him a national security risk for this arrest to be valid under UK law. If that happens, it's a very, very serious bending, if not breaking, of the law.
Edit 2: And lastly, Julian Assange presented himself to the Swedish authorities before, in Sweden, for questioning. But they decided that they weren't going to press charges. That was on the 30th of August 2010, almost two years ago. I quote from Wikipedia: "On 1 September 2010, Swedish Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations. On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden. On 18 October 2010, his request was denied. He left Sweden on 27 September 2010. The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest."
> These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this.
and
> not beyond the realms of possibility, is that these women are genuinely making these accusations.
Those statements seem to support that, wouldn't you say?
However, when presented with the question of why didn't they just come in and questioned him after being invited and granted access you reply with
> Sweden is well within their rights to refuse that offer.
So they are just dragging their feet refusing the offer. Is it because they don't like British food or is the travel too grueling. Remember, they are spending all this effort and time supposedly because they deeply care about the fate of these two women.
The next step in the process is the questioning and then after being invited to question him to move the process along they refuse.
You'll have to forgive everyone if they don't quite believe the official reasons. To me it sounds fishy for example.
> Assange in the embassy and decided they wanted to charge him he would just walk out happily?
It doesn't matter what happens then. They identified a next step in the process and they claim they cannot accomplish it. While it has been clear that they can.
If the Swedish government legitimately wanted to question Assange about the risible "rape" charges (that they didn't even bother with while he was in Sweden), why didn't they give a guarantee not to extradite him to the US?
Because they want to extradite him and the "rape" case is an excuse.
If Assange was so afraid Sweden would send him to the US why did he go there in the first place?
It might be total paranoia on his end, but he does certainly have reason to wonder what suddenly changed that made things go from a situation where one prosecutor closed the case stating that there was nothing that indicated a crime had taken place, to an entirely unrelated prosecutor from a different district deciding it was suddenly urgent to get him back into the country and then repeatedly escalating matters.
In fact, to the point where said prosecutor has now been faced with a formal complaint about judicial misconduct from a third party (two Swedish journalists) over her handling of this case.
He has been under house arrest with access to phone, TV, internet. He even runs a freakin' talk show. Telling the world they can't "question" him is a little dis-indigenous and they need to make up a better reason.
This distinction is worth making. At no point did these women go to the police and claim that Assange had raped them - not even the Swedish prosecution has made the claim they did. They did go to the police and ask questions that someone at the police then decided to interpret as indicating that a crime might have taken place, and start an investigation.
They then were interviewed, in situations that subsequent reports indicate may have been blatant violations of police procedure - no recording was apparently made, one of the police officers involved was allegedly a friend of one of the witnesses.
The results were statements that have not been formally released, nor been verified or scrutinized by anyone independent.
What is allegedly the police reports were on the other hand illegally leaked to a Swedish newspaper, and Assanges name was confirmed by authorities in conjunction with the case in blatant violation of Swedish police procedures. But we don't even know if the leaked police reports are accurate or final copies.
Subsequent to the investigation, the first prosecutor to get involved in the case looked at the police reports and decided they indicated that no crime had taken part.
What is allegedly descriptions supported by the contents of these statements was then used in the arrest warrants formulated by a second prosecutor that stepped in in a highly unusual move and reopened the investigation.
The reasons for why she stepped in to reopen just this case, despite how unusual it is to do so when another prosecutor has closed the case, has not at any point been explained.
In retrospect, it is now also being alleged that one of the women is refusing to sign statements about the case at all.
In other words, so far we don't even know what the women actually said to the police.
What we know is the content of a highly unusual and highly illegal leak to a Swedish newspaper, and how one prosecutor has chosen to interpret their words in an arrest warrant written with the express purpose of ensuring that a UK court would extradite Assange to the UK.
We do know one prosecutor found the police investigation had not found any evidence that any crime had taken place at all, and another found it did. We do know there are a lot of open questions about how the statements were collected, and about lack of documentation. We do have reason to question whether at least one of the women is willing to put her name behind the police interpretation of what she said. We don't know whether they made any actual allegations that amount to any crimes.
Maybe it is all accurate, and perhaps he is guilty. But it isn't even remotely clear whether or not there even should be a case to answer.
> They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition.
That is true, and it is not surprising that UK courts ordered the extradition.
But the real issue here is also not whether there is a genuine reason for a UK court to approve an extradition, but whether or not there is something going on that gives reason to be concerned that these accusations are not the full story.
Especially in a case where the Swedish prosecution have had a year or so to interview him in London, yet have chosen not to while claiming they can't. At the same time, somehow Swedish police has been able to go off to Poland to interview two suspected Polish murderers about a double homicide.
So either Swedish police has just risked messing up a double homicide case, or the Swedish prosecutor in the Assange case is at best misinformed about something she ought to know about, at worst being intentionally deceptive.
Even if we don't buy the US extradition idea, this is still a strange situation. The argument that they somehow need him on Swedish soil is nonsense - Swedish police provably regularly conduct interviews outside of Sweden, and you can provably be charged and tried in absentia in Sweden, despite many claims to the contrary.
So why does the Swedish prosecutor resist taking up evidence in a rape case for a year while making claims about why she is not that can not be supported by fact?
If Sweden truly just wanted to question Assange, they could do it via mail, email, phone, video chat or of course an in person meeting in the UK. All of which I believe Assange has already offered to do. But they've declined. Which means that Sweden/UK/USA's actual goal is something other than simply questioning him. It's a fact that he's neither been convicted or even charged with any crime (IIRC), especially not with respect to the supposed sexual "assault" incidents, which look like he-said/she-said instances at best, and a frame-up at worst.
I don't understand why it's gotten to this point- you charge and arrest him ... or GTFO.
"Mr. Copper, I've decided to seek asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy..." "Well, Mr. Assange, I sure hate to see you go but I guess I'll drive you there myself."
If they didn't want him walking around (where he could claim asylum in an embassy) then he should have been in custody. If he wasn't in custody, there must have been a reason he wasn't. Sounds to me like they (law enforcement) screwed up and they're now trying to blame an Ecuadorian ambassador.
And if you read up on the details of the story, and the context, it's very fishy. It's at best a case of he-said vs she-said --- arguably one of the perfect ways to smear someone's reputation and cause them legal and financial hassle, without having to meet the minimum legal standards to convict someone of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Men and women have sex ALL the time, 24/7, all across the world, in all sorts of complex ways, variations, situations, and very often without condoms. It's also a fact that a large percentage of women like men to be dominant with them and it arouses them.
Given all these facts, and this cultural context, it's hard to know exactly what happened behind closed doors in these incidents, and before the legal system ruins a man's life they need to be damn sure they're doing the right thing. From just what's known publicly so far this case looks so flaky and muddled and suspicious that a reasonable person could easily say those standards aren't met here.
"In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in relation to allegations of rape and sexual assault by two women in Sweden"
That seems to imply that an attorney was able to present sufficient evidence to a court to merit an arrest warrant being issued. I don't know the facts of the case in depth, but you seem to be asserting that European Arrest Warrants are issued capriciously, with no regard for due process. That would seem to be far more worrying that the specifics of this case.
>> There is no trial. There are no charges.
At least in the US, those typically come after the suspect is apprehended (and not in that order). Perhaps it's different in European courts. But I was not aware that trials in absentia were the norm there.
If you want to go after someone's reputation, a rape charge is perfect -- repugnant and requires no hard evidence, especially in Sweden. The only thing better would be an allegation without a formal charge... Though sure, there are more plausible explanations.
Secondly, if the us wanted assagne they'd have him, shifting to Ecuador is probably a lot less safe than hanging around an EU country IMO
Thirdly, he had his chance to go back to Sweden, he ran. He had his chance in the uk, he ran. He's not showing him self to be of good character if the acts of abuse of process he claims to stand against are being carried out by himself
Guilty or not, he's got questions to ask. Running away isn't going to make his issues disappear
And lets not forget, sexual assault is a serious allegation, and if you had any sense about you, someone lying about using protection would really piss you off. Apart from the fact it means putting a woman at risk of having to look after a brat for 18 years plus incubation, there's also the risk of disease, complication through pregnancy and common flipping curtosey.
I would absolutely go for something like that, if I were clever enough to think of it. Look at how effectively it's split his support on the left by pitting civil libertarians against feminists, even on this thread.
Why is there this willingness to believe everything this idiot says? He’s a pompous ass, pure and simple. No conspiracy required.
Meanwhile the idea of an anonymous leaks platform dies because everyone focuses on his stupid antics.
...they're looking like idiots right now.
I don't get where this sentiment comes from - care to explain?
Being afraid of "looking like idiots" doesn't seem like a very plausible explanation for invading an embassy.
I doubt the rest of the world would think British authorities were incompetent for wanting to avoid an international incident. Nor is forcing an embassy to release an asylum seeker something "simple".
I doubt that Assange being a "pompous ass" is what's killing the anonymous leaks platform idea. Rather I would say that the relentless pursuit of everyone involved in such leaks and their infrastructure as well as lack of support from traditional media are probably to blame for it.
Which is probably key to their reaction.
Can you explain this? In what way is it evidence in regards to the Swedish charges.
Based on recent cases of extradition to the USA examination of the charges is not made locally?
Only when he lost did he go for asylum. Sincere asylum is not "Plan B."
I do not see why this is always the case, care to elaborate?
You can choose asylum or you can choose to let the court decide. Trying to get the best of both worlds is mere gamesmanship and lacks any pretense at integrity.
This is why, for example, Roman Polanski's lawyers have been refused a hearing on his matter in the US. You have to choose between being a fugitive or being tried in court. You don't get to say "I'd like the Court to find me innocent before I stop being a fugitive."
Or of course they need medical attention that can't be taken care of inside the embassy.
The Government here has advised that under through a sound legal process it may revoke the legal status of an instituion within and on its territory. Is this right? Well, it's a little unusual...alternatively, ignoring the interests and desires of Sweden, the European Union and the United States would be still further unwise for the British. Britain has its interests, and it must do what serves them best.
In this case, doing something less than usual is worth it: there's virtually no downside to upsetting a small Latin American country in the process. The British government just won't care. It's not fair, but for better or worse, that's that.
Let's analyze this a bit further...
Next time a British citizen holes up in the British embassy over some sham charges at the hands of the local police what are the likely aftershocks of Britain bullying Ecuador over Assange.
Assange is taking his supporters for a ride, if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions?
As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused'
The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer?
Ship Assange out, if not Sweden then Australia, he's taking the piss (to use an UK colloquialism) and lots of people are falling for his conspiracy theory rubbish.
If he's not guilty, AND this isn't politically motivated, why not just go back? If this is actually politically motivated, then your question is fundamentally no different from "if you're not a terrorist, why don't you just submit to wiretaps / TSA body scans / etc..."
If I was him and I was innocent, I would probably not expect to face fair questions if I went back. The being said, I know almost nothing about the Swedish government so maybe I am being too much of a conspiracy theorist.
Given that the US has filled no charges against him, made no extradition requests to Sweden or the UK, and that there seems to be a fair degree of legal consensus that the European Court of Human Rights would deny extradition for the sort of charges that the US could plausibly file against him it seems to me that to believe that Assange has credible reasons to try and avoid obeying the request that he attend questioning in Sweden for what would be considered fairly serious accusations in most western countries is to buy into a conspiracy theory.
It also means the lack of public charges (the repeated claims is that there might be a secret grand jury indictment), nor a lack of a public extradition request is pretty much irrelevant.
It's not like Sweden or the US announced in advance they planned to illegally take a couple of Egyptians from Sweden and hand them over to Egyptian authorities for torture. But they did.
Incidentally, this is a good reason for Assange to prefer to be in the UK vs. Sweden - the UK seems less inclined to violate their own laws in this manner.
Two known events:
CIA extraordinary rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden
The Pirate Bay
Pirate Bay Judge Exposed as Member of Pro-Copyright Groups http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/pirateconflict/
Aftermath of The Pirate Bay Trial: Peter Sunde’s Plea http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate-bay-...
Pro-Copyright Judges Never Drop Cases Over Conflicts, So Why Does Megaupload Judge Have To Step Down? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/00503119739/pro-co...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-a...
"Throughout this process have we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," the spokesman said."
Perhaps Sweden has fewer safeguards built into its extradition laws?
What happens if the US has already secretly convicted and sentenced Assange in his absence? Maybe even the death sentence? It might be the case that the UK's extradition laws with "extensive human rights safeguards" would prevent extradition to the US, but Sweden's laws wouldn't. Extradition to Sweden is a way for the UK to step around their own human rights laws.
I am not a lawyer, and not that familiar with Swedish law, but I would be Assange or his lawyer is, and is also aware that if the women are really working on behalf of some other agency there is a high likely hood of Swedish law working against him. If that's the case he is unlikely to get a fair hearing.
NB if someone more familiar with Swedish law could speak up about this that would be excellent. I would love some corrections about the above with supported documentation.
BTW as an Aussie I am horrified that our PM Julia Gillard condemned him without any proof, and even more furious over their lack of involvement to help an Australian national. Convicted Drug Traffickers seem to get more help from the Australian government then people only accused of a crime.
The worst possible sentence he is likely to get under Swedish law is so short that he'd likely have been out by now, after serving in a low security prison of a standard better than many British hotel rooms.
If he ISN'T guilty, then he has every reason to be concerned over the bizarre situations surrounding this case, such as why one prosecutor dismissed the case as obviously nothing criminal, only for another prosecutor with a known history for being aggressive about these types of cases to jump in an pick it up in a pretty unheard of move, and with the long list of other irregularities in the case, combined with Marianne Ny (the prosecutor)'s long standing refusal to consider interviewing him in London - a move that is pretty shocking given how they continue to expend resources in this case and insist it is so serious.
It is quite possible that the US has nothing to do with it, but something is fishy in the way the Swedish prosecution is handling this. Maybe it's not a US desire to extradite him, but "just" a prosecutor out to make her name with a politically motivated case where the target is Swedish rape law, not Assange - if it is he'd surely be a perfect target. But if I was him and I was innocent, I'd resist extradition too.
Of course, it is possible he's guilty but at the same time paranoid about the US - just pointing out that it is not a given that staying away from Sweden in these circumstances imply guilt. On the contrary, there are plenty of reasons for someone to be more wary about going back if not guilty in this case.
> As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused'
Law enforcement frequently opt to interview suspects in situations less than ideal when the choice is to not be able to interview them at all, or to have the interviews delayed.
Consider that if there is a case to answer - something that is not clear, as no charges have been filed (Assange is wanted for arrest for questioning on suspicion, not charged; the distinction keeps confusing British media, who is not used to the Scandinavian justice systems) -, then every day that goes makes any testimony that is collected less likely to be considered reliable by the court, and it is also clearly not in the interest of the alleged victims either to have the situation drag on without knowing whether or not the case will move forward.
This is also, despite the protestations of the Swedish prosecutor, commonly the case in Sweden. As many has pointed out, Sweden recently sent people to Poland to interview two people arrested on suspicion of a brutal double homicide, prior to an extradition hearing in Poland under an EAW.
Yet somehow they keep claiming they couldn't possibly do this in the Assange case, even going so far as to claim that Swedish law and court procedures won't allow it. This is another one of those things that makes the Assange case stink a long way, whether the US is involved in any way or not.
> The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer?
How easy is it? McKinnon has been able to avoid extradition for 10 years now, despite a pretty clear cut case of hacking that is clearly illegal in both countries. As it turns out, while UK judges will honour UK obligations, they are also highly scrupulous about ensuring all arguments are heard, and the UK government seems unwilling to try an end-run around the legal process.
Meanwhile, Sweden has been censured by the UN for participating in rendition of at least two people in blatant violation of not only internatonal obligatons, but also of Swedish law.
Because they want to extradite him and the "rape" case is an excuse.
Well first of all, either an arrest warrant is valid or it is not. If valid, why do they need to bribe someone to obey the law? Sure, I sometimes give my kids snacks to bribe them into doing something they don't want to do, but I'm not the law.
Second, they cannot promise what their reaction would be. Suppose something impossibly-unlikely like the US has a video-tape of Assange killing someone in the US. The Swedes would then look pretty stupid at having given Assange a no-extradite promise. Now of course Assange isn't a murderer; the point is that the Swedes can't give blanket promises about extradition without actually seeing the facts of the extradition request first.
If the US shows up with a video of Assange killing someone it will have been made on a Hollywood renderfarm.
We know that because we know that the US is bent on hunting Assange down for political reasons and have set up a secret Grand Jury for this purpose.
When the law says one thing and justice says another, the customary thing to do is to push the law towards justice, not the victim of injustice towards the law.
I remember when that idea was just the plot of a mediocre Michael Crighton book. That it doesn't strike me as absurd anymore is either amazing or frightening. How would you even begin to fight that kind of evidence in front of a jury?
The UK government has 'reminded' Ecuador of this fact in an attempt to influence their decision.
It may well be that the wonderful British police or SAS could smoothly extract Assange, however, what happens if the not so wonderful Ecuadorian authorities decided to lay some sort of siege to the British Embassy in Ecuador? Are British authorities really prepared to risk that?
Don't forget that Assange is not and asylum "seeker" anymore, but that he has in fact been granted asylum. In other words, under international law, he is and Ecuadorian Citizen and unless Britain decides to transgress International Law and effectively declare war on Ecuador, no amount of sabre rattling will amount to anything at all.
The UK should be like, "well, whatever, he'll come out eventually" instead of issuing threats against other countries. Maybe they'll send in the SAS next - that would be interesting to watch...
The thing about being a martyr for a cause is that they usually don't walk away from the experience unscathed. I think this man thought he was untouchable and acted accordingly, deciding to be a celebrity instead of a quiet hero. Well, the hammer is dropping.
Good luck, Julian, you completely unlikable but necessary bastard. Hopefully the people who carry on in your stead are a bit more careful.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr
Definition #2. It helps if you die, but it's not required.
Besides, look at that smug face. It's seriously in the running for a 'most punchable face alive' award.
In regards to your second point, I deal with smug bastards on a day to day basis. Smug isn't so much about how someone looks as it is about how they look at you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Chats_with_Adri...
The only thing that they should be looking at, is whether or not his case for asylum is valid under their rules.
It is like a movie not real life.
Now that possible outcome aside I do wonder if there are more important clear-cut cases of people in the UK wanted for questioning regarding crimes in Switzerland. I'm tending to think that if there was then that would of been made very public already and yet I have seen none. If he is in all effect Sitzerlands number one criminal suspect or wanted criminal in the UK and who's location is known then maybe this isn't as biased with regard to pursuit than any other case and only with the News value is it publicly deemed more impacting.
But thats not realy the issue, the issue if he ends up being shipped to America and lost in a maze of prisons that is the issue realy as if there was a case against him then America would of been granted a extradition from the UK, that did not happen. Now if that happens in Switzerland then that is the concern and the real issue and in that you can respect Mr Assange's concerns upon that matter and why he is taking the approach he is currently as that whole assurance has not been given that it will not happen. If he had that assurance then from my understanding is that this would not be an issue and in the news today. It is this that makes things concerning in how things are being possibly being handled.
RIP Yvonne Fletcher, justice was slow, but we do get there.
Remember they are all friends. The UK has the Falklands which Argentina (mates of Ecuador) are very keen to take ownership, especially with the discovery of every conspiracy theorists favourite motivator.... OIL
Yes boys and girls, perhaps this whole thing is less to do with Assange and wiki-leaks and more to do with a bit of dick waving over old wounds and money. That's a better theory for whats going on now
http://twitter.com/alburyj http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj
http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/201...