Julian Assange of WikiLeaks Seeks Asylum in Ecuador In Attempt To Avoid Extradition t

[BetterCallSaul]

Laugh out loud at the idea of the U.S sending several black ops to the Ecuadorian embassy in London to break out Assange.

That was funny.

The UK and Russia are constantly as loggerheads, yet the Kremlin can't just break all diplomatic code and conduct to get their wanted men.

That usually involves a great deal of secrecy, sushi, briefcases, and plutonium.

[salitap4p#1]

When the Guardian comments section speaks the whole world listens. Because the Guardian comments section is totally without political bias.

Oh and he faces charges of espionage in the US, not treason. But espionage is still a capital crime... which I believe would mean that Sweden would be prohibited by EU law from allowing his extradition to America. The EU forbids extradition to the US unless a guarantee is made that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedoc...jha/110727.pdf

The best thing about Ecuador is their dedication to human rights. Unless you happen to live near oil and then you have none.

The lack of a death penalty is hardly an assurance. I'm sure the U.S. would be equally content with keeping him locked up in a dungeon with access to no one save for limited access to their legal representatives (which even then would probably be monitored, as in the case of Manning).

[squealpiggy]

The lack of a death penalty is hardly an assurance. I'm sure the U.S. would be equally content with keeping him locked up in a dungeon with access to no one save for limited access to their legal representatives (which even then would probably be monitored, as in the case of Manning).

EU countries also deprive criminals of their liberty. Jail is not a barrier to extradition. But capital punishment is, and rightly so.

[salitap4p#1]

EU countries also deprive criminals of their liberty. Jail is not a barrier to extradition. But capital punishment is, and rightly so.

Your didn't address the legal access part- legal access is confidential. Authorities cannot monitor discussions between a client and legal representative as they have been in the Manning case (it's illegal to do so in the U.S. too, but they're happily turning a blind eye, which is less likely to happen in the EU).

But in any case you're incorrect- You cannot deprive one of liberty without bringing them before a court and obtaining a conviction. You're from the UK, yet are unaware of habeas corpus?

Manning has been locked up with minimal court appearances which would be illegal in the EU, as would the conditions of his custody.

Only in extreme cases can there be such prolonged detention in the EU, as with terror suspects in the UK. But even then they're released but under tight controls. They're not locked up in the same manner. In fact, detaining them in less worse conditions than Mannning was declared illegal by the then House of Lords, following the ECtHR, in A and others v Home Office.

Nice try though, but you need to know your stuff better before trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

[Jam Jars]

America trying to police the world.

[Drunken Cat]

An Ecuadorian politician saying he would be extradited from Sweden is not a good enough source for me, sorry. All there is is just rumors which are treated like facts about Sweden wanting to bring him to America, which is blatantly unproven. All he would have had to do is go to Sweden and answer some questions to the investigators, the "rape" case is a joke anyway and he wouldn't be convicted of anything. And that Assange is doing business with the Russian government and their propaganda TV channel Russia Today, the same government that is arresting gays for saying being gay is okay, shows me all I need to know about this man.

That's cool. Think whatever you want.

The point is though that the so-called sex charges are just a cover story. The extraordinary steps that are being taken by the Brits, including threatening to storm the embassy to arrest a man supposedly wanted for questioning alone gives credit to his fears however.

[Superflo777]

Oh yeah, I think I heard of those guys as well. Where did I hear of them? Hmm. Oh yeah, I remember! In the Call of Duty Black Ops video game!

Yeah there's a difference between a night-time raid on a Pakistani compound near the Afghan border and violating the sovereignty of both Ecuador's embassy and your number one ally Great Britain by sending special military ops into a building in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the world after an extremely high profile media target.

If we wanted him badly enough we could get him, but to do so would be a bit of a diplomatic nightmare. This is a political situation, not a military one. But then again you're a gun-obsessed basket case so naturally you assume that any problem can be solved with enough shooty men.

If they really want to kill him they best do it when he's living in Ecuador. You could easily pay some killers there so he has an unfortunate car accident or something similar, the country is riddled with crime anyway, that would be much easier than going into the embassy.

[Drunken Cat]

Here's the complete speech of the Ecuadorian FM (published by that Russian propaganda station RT. In case you hadn't noticed, the Cold War ended more than 20 years ago by the way).

Give it a listen and judge for yourself, if you like.

The first part deals just with the British threat to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy. If you are only interested in the asylum ruling, start the video at 9:25.

[squealpiggy]

Your didn't address the legal access part- legal access is confidential. Authorities cannot monitor discussions between a client and legal representative as they have been in the Manning case (it's illegal to do so in the U.S. too, but they're happily turning a blind eye, which is less likely to happen in the EU).

But in any case you're incorrect- You cannot deprive one of liberty without bringing them before a court and obtaining a conviction. You're from the UK, yet are unaware of habeas corpus?

Manning has been locked up with minimal court appearances which would be illegal in the EU, as would the conditions of his custody.

Only in extreme cases can there be such prolonged detention in the EU, as with terror suspects in the UK. But even then they're released but under tight controls. They're not locked up in the same manner. In fact, detaining them in less worse conditions than Mannning was declared illegal by the then House of Lords, following the ECtHR, in A and others v Home Office.

Nice try though, but you need to know your stuff better before trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

If Assange was brought to the US it would be to face trial for espionage. So he would be going before a court. Of course he would be remanded in custody and denied bail as a flight risk. Considering he's already sought political asylum in Ecuador to avoid extradition he'd have a hard time arguing that he isn't one.

Bradley Manning is also facing prosecution. He is in custody under the military system however, which has slightly different rules.

Manning is locked up before trial, not in lieu of trial.

[MokMok]

Julian Assange is a modern day revolutionary. While most of us brag about the number of women we shagged or how awesome we all are by whatever measurement, guys like Assange does the right thing.

Exposing the truth.