If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.
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.
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.
I don't get where this sentiment comes from - care to explain?
...they're looking like idiots right now.
Which is probably key to their reaction.
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.
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.
Deleted comment
charges
Deleted comment
Sounds like pretty extenuating circumstances for a Swedish investigator to go to Britain to me, unless there's an actual law that says he MUST be questioned in Sweden
Edit: parent deleted their comment
Somewhat, which is why I never weighed in on it before. But if the UK is threatening something as unusual as invading an embassy, that is evidence that there is likely to be something more to the issue.
(Substitute China for any other dictatorship as you please)
It is an incredibly bad precedent to set, and I very much doubt they will go there.
Leaving police posted outside until people get bored of the whole thing, sure. Sending stern letters, sure. Calling the Ecuadorian embassy in to explain himself, sure. Maybe a few more things. Maybe even expelling some low level staff if things get really nasty.
But if they enter the embassy, then either someone is a complete idiot and haven't thought through consequences, or Assanges suspicions about US involvement suddenly becomes a lot more credible.
If the British enter the Ecuadorian embassy to extradite Assange to Sweden, this sets a precedent for the Chinese government to enter embassies in China to arrest Chinese dissidents accused of rape in China? No, because in the case of Assange, the idea that he's some kind of political prisoner subject to a CIA plot lies somewhere between conspiracy theory and delusion of grandeur, while in the case of Chinese dissidents, it would be plainly transparent what China was trying to do.
Plus, it turns out that China gets their dissidents to stop hiding out in western embassies by threatening to beat their wives to death. Dictatorships are much more direct than you give them credit for: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/world/asia/chen-guangcheng...
To throw out just a few data points of context: the US government has a history of violating international law, violating the sovereignty of other nations, and, most recently, of violating it's own Constitution. Also consider Gitmo. And consider how Bradley Manning was treated while in custody, before/without trial, before/without even charges.
Deleted comment
According to Wikipedia he is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (this is presumably why he's hiding in a non-EU embassy).
Edit: arrest warrants don't always/usually imply that any charges have been filed. This is not unusual. The unusual part is a person accused of rape hiding out in the embassy of a country of which he is not a citizen, in a country of which he is not a citizen, while people cheer him on for being righteous.
He has NOT been accused of rape.
Also I'm sure there have been millions if not billions of incidents of sex across the world, to date, if not happening again every day, where one or both participants preferred, either beforehand, or during, or afterward, that a condom was used, even though it wasn't, and in 99.99% of those cases nobody considers it "rape". At most, a non-ideal incident, a risky event, or something to get angry about with one's partner, in private. But I'm sure it's a very common occurrence, both between singles and married couples, and in the vast majority of cases it doesn't turn into claims of rape or major international diplomatic incidents. It's just one of those life oopsies. I bet a lot of children were brought into this world because of this kind of oopsie, however non-ideal. Regardless, it's a fact that they went to bed with him willingly. It's a fact that neither appeared distraught or made any complaints about it to friends afterward. It's a fact that there were no signs of violence or physical harm. Also it's a fact that a large percentage of women fantasize about dominant men, sexually. Is it possible that in this case Assange was too aggressive and insensitive? Absolutely! And who's business should that be? At most, Assange and these two other individuals. Period. End of story. And ultimately, those are the only people who really know, for sure, what really happened, and how it happened. The rest is spectacle and fodder for speculation and diplomatic warfare.
Sweden have acknowledge to have violated Swedish law and international treaties in US instigated renditions of at least two people.
Get him to Sweden, and whispering the right words into the right ear might circumvent that whole pesky extradition hearing thing.
That makes it an issue of foreign relations for the Swedish government.
Meanwhile, Sweden has a history of cooperating with the US on illegal renditions in violation of Swedish law and international treaties, to the point where Sweden has actually paid damages to at least one person - Muhammad al-Zery - who was tortured after Swedish police had handed him over to masked CIA officers at a Swedish airport and witnessed as he was stripped, drugged, chained and handcuffed and loaded on a plane to be flown to Egypt where he was tortured.
Said person was in Sweden applying for political asylum.
It caused diplomatic incidents when it was first revealed to the public and Swedish authorities "put a stop to it". Then shortly afterwards, Swedish military intelligence uncovered that it was still ongoing with the knowledge of airport personnel. At least officially without the knowledge of the Swedish government.
Maybe they've stopped now. Or maybe the units that participated in it are just better at hiding it, or maybe the US government is just better at making sure said Swedish government units have better reasons to deny knowledge.
But the fact remains that for sveral years, the US extracted prisoners from and/or transported prisoners through Sweden illegally to hand them over to regimes that would carry out torture in violation of both US and Swedish law and international treaties, with the complicit knowledge of the Swedish government.
It's quite possible the UK did too. But which government do you think the US cares the least about jerking around?
There is another possibility: Theoretically, both the women might be paid by CIA when Assange is extradited for questioning. But that is just another stupid conspiracy theory.
Edit: Clarity.
Edit 2: It is hard to take the arguments seriously, since Assange originally went to Sweden voluntarily without fearing extradition to USA. Wikileaks should just get a saner guy as front figure.
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?