WikiLeaks founder arrested in U.K. - Page 44

On August 16 2012 23:33 itsjustatank wrote:


I thought it was 'he didn't use protection in the first place.'

On August 16 2012 23:38 Noak wrote:
Assange is being such a idiot. If he'd actually just go to the court he'd 99% be free, its just that when accused he cannot be skipping out on his trial even though he's innocent. He's playing by the same rules as everyone else.

On August 16 2012 23:38 Noak wrote:
Assange is being such a idiot. If he'd actually just go to the court he'd 99% be free, its just that when accused he cannot be skipping out on his trial even though he's innocent. He's playing by the same rules as everyone else.

On August 16 2012 23:38 Noak wrote:
Assange is being such a idiot. If he'd actually just go to the court he'd 99% be free, its just that when accused he cannot be skipping out on his trial even though he's innocent. He's playing by the same rules as everyone else.

On August 16 2012 23:31 DwD wrote:
This must be the first time in history a person is granted asylum because of rape charges... What a circus. If he only went to Sweden when this all started it would've been over already. I've lost my respect for Assange. The women deserves their day in court.

On August 16 2012 23:38 Noak wrote:
Assange is being such a idiot. If he'd actually just go to the court he'd 99% be free, its just that when accused he cannot be skipping out on his trial even though he's innocent. He's playing by the same rules as everyone else.

On August 16 2012 23:43 itsjustatank wrote:
Text of the communication given by the UK government to the Ecuadorian government regarding their embassy. Judge it for yourself rather than on how other people are telling you about what it says. Source: The Guardian

We are aware, and surprised by media reports in the last 24 hours, that Ecuador is about to
take a decision and proposes to grant asylum to Mr. Assange. The reports quote official
sources. We note that the (Ecuadorean) President (Rafael Correa) has stated that no
decision has yet been made.

We are concerned, if true, that this might undermine our efforts to agree a joint text 
setting out the positions of both countries, allowing Mr. Assange to leave the Embassy.

As we have previously set out, we must meet our legal obligations under the European 
Arrest Warrant Framework Decision and the Extradition Act 2003, to arrest Mr. Assange 
and extradite him to Sweden. We remain committed to working with you amicably to resolve 
this matter. But we must be absolutely clear this means that should we receive a request 
for safe passage for Mr. Assange, after granting asylum, this would be refused, in line 
with our legal obligations.

In that light, and given the statements of the last 24 hours, we hope that you are 
prepared to continue to engage with the ongoing diplomatic discussions. We continue to 
believe that a solution is possible on the basis of a jointly agreed text, which would 
accompany Mr. Assange exiting the Embassy, and leading to his extradition.

We have a further meeting scheduled for Thursday 16th August. Given the statements made 
in Quito overnight, about an imminent decision, should we take it this meeting will be 
the final one to agree a joint text?

We have to reiterate that we consider continued use of diplomatic premises in this way,
to be incompatible with the VCDR (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) and not 
sustainable, and that we have already made clear to you the serious implications for 
our diplomatic relations.

You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular 
Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current 
premises of the Embassy.

We very much hope not to get this point, but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's 
presence on your premises, this route is open to us.

We understand the importance to you of the issues raised by Mr. Assange, and the strong 
public pressure in country. But we still have to resolve the situation on the ground, 
here in the U.K., in line with our legal obligations. We have endeavored to develop a 
joint text, which helps both meet your concerns, and presentational needs.

We believe a joint text and a voluntary surrender by Mr. Assange is the best way forward.

On August 16 2012 23:50 paralleluniverse wrote:

That's pretty much how it's been reported. A direct threat that if Ecuador does not surrender Assange, then the UK would revoke embassy status and raid it to arrest him

On August 16 2012 23:50 paralleluniverse wrote:

That's pretty much how it's been reported. A direct threat that if Ecuador does not surrender Assange, then the UK would revoke embassy status and raid it to arrest him

On August 17 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:
This whole thing makes me angry.

I am so annoyed by JA and his mindless followers. Why did JA go to Sweden in the first place?
Well, he wanted to use Sweden as a base for his Wikileaks organization because of the very strong legal foundations of freedom of speech could be used to protect it. This move was praised by his followers and I bet that especially his Swedish followers were a bit proud.

Then the single individual Julian Assange, literally, fucks up and commits something that is considered a crime in this country. As it turns out he is not a very polite sexual partner. Over here you might not get away with that as easy as you might do in other places.

The case gets handled very sloppy by the authorities and the case is dismissed. When new facts come in someone decides to take control of the situation and JA is wanted for questioning again.
All this is about JA and actions committed by him as a private individual. Nothing of it has to do with Wikileaks. Neither does it concern freedom of speech in this country.

The next 2.5 years is spent dodging extradition by paying an array of lawyers to scour British, Swedish and European law for technicalities pushing the case all the way up to the highest court instance.
It is clear that this was only a delay maneuver when the final verdict comes, or that at least that it was plan A.
JA could at any point have sought political asylum at the embassy of Ecuador - Plan B.

It is funny how his lawyers managed to picture Sweden as a third world country when it comes to human rights.
A lot of his followers, some of them Swedes, agreed with this description and in their eyes Sweden was suddenly a really bad country and the women accusing him of sexual crimes are most likely on a US government payroll.

Any serious organization of this type would not be dependent on one single persons doings, issues or mental state.
If they had set their organization up better they could have detached Mr Assange and continued with the plan to base Wikileaks in Sweden.

Is JA going to run Wikileaks from Ecuador if he gets there? Does Ecuador have a truly free press and is the freedom of speech as good as in Sweden? Can he publish leaked documents from the Ecuadorian government?

Shame on you! Go back to Sweden and face the charges and take your potential punishment like a man.
It is silly to condition your trip to Sweden by demanding guarantees that you wont be handed over to a third country.
If you are charged with a crime and the police wants you for questioning you go there for questioning. You don't get to negotiate in these matters.

On August 16 2012 20:43 obesemk wrote:
A journalist that exposes abuse is a terrorist now?