h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"They have had ample opportunity to go to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and question Julian Assange. They said, ‘we’re not going to do that.' Now, why is that? The reason is, there is no case against Julian Assange. In my opinion, it’s all very transparent. They want to extradite him to Sweden, and then to the United States...."

Former CIA officer Ray McGovern

http://rt.com/news/assange-asylum-cold-war-883/

"....the Ecuadorian government has sought legal guarantees from both the U.K. and Sweden that Assange will not be extradited to the United States.
A senior Ecuadorian legal adviser said, “If Ecuador could be assured that the evil it wishes to prevent: The extradition to the USA of Julian Assange, could be [avoided], then that would be a just solution.”
According to two officials at the embassy, they had yet to receive an answer from either country concerning such legal guarantees."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/329766

I thought that interviewing Assange in the embassy gave a bit to much credence to Assange's "right" to go to Ecuador as he wished.

As said i don't know enought between the judicial state of affairs between Sweden and the US to pass my opinions on that - it would seem dodgy in giving a unilateral judgement by Sweden saying they would not hand him over - what if one piece of released information suddenly turned out to result in someones death - suddenly his extradition seems more reasonable (unlikely i admit, but there are problems to be dealth with)

"13. Sweden has NEVER refused an Extradition request from the U.S.A."

"14. In 2001 Sweden gave two innocent Egyptian refugees to the CIA for rendition to Egypt, where they were tortured."

"15. The Swedish Justice Minister who signed off on the CIA rendition torture flight was Thomas Bodström."

"16. Thomas Bodström is now the business partner of Claes Borgström, the politician/lawyer of the two Swedish women in the Assange case."

From Wikileaks itself.

13. Sweden has NEVER refused an Extradition request from the U.S.A.

14. In 2001 Sweden gave two innocent Egyptian refugees to the CIA for rendition to Egypt, where they were tortured.

15. The Swedish Justice Minister who signed off on the CIA rendition torture flight was Thomas Bodström.

16. Thomas Bodström is now the business partner of Claes Borgström, the politician/lawyer of the two Swedish women in the Assange case.

13. Sweden has NEVER refused an Extradition request from the U.S.A.

14. In 2001 Sweden gave two innocent Egyptian refugees to the CIA for rendition to Egypt, where they were tortured.

15. The Swedish Justice Minister who signed off on the CIA rendition torture flight was Thomas Bodström.

16. Thomas Bodström is now the business partner of Claes Borgström, the politician/lawyer of the two Swedish women in the Assange case.

http://wlcentral.org/node/2671



The time line-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

So nice i said it thrice. Purview is our fiend.

I personally thought you were making an effective point, shouldn't have admitted it...course it might have leaked

Can we just clear up one point -

Has the US requested his extradition?

Given that the UK hands over people to the US on the flimsiest of "evidence", I find it strange that if the Americans wanted Assange so badly they didn't seek extradition when Assange was in a British jail. In fact, Assange has spent a year and a half living openly as a free man in the UK whilst lawyers appealed the European Arrest Warrant - plenty of time for the US to act, no?

Why are we to believe that the US will wait until Assange is taken to Sweden to face trial before they seek his extradition?

"... whilst lawyers appealed the European Arrest Warrant..."

I think this is the key bit. There are enough of the best lawyers in the world eager to work pro bono on Assange's behalf that they wanted something a bit more reliable.

I think they also want to see what happens, the US may think that its too much media trouble to deal with Assange if he is held in Sweden, especially if then found guilty and incarcerated - or at least they'd wait until he'd finished his jail term, where they might hope the media furor had died down

The Yanks should just send in the drones they have been using in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere or/and those miniature killer robots they have been developing.

ps I just remembered the Brits have all those missiles perched on London housing states. They could use them to get the evil-doer.

estates

>Is it just me, or is anyone else replaying the end of Lethal Weapon 2 in their head?<


No, I had to restrain myself from doing Danny Glover quotes...

So are we all positive, certain and sure that he didn't do anything to the two ladies who are accusing him?

Because while I want to believe it's a conspiracy to get rid of him, I can't help but think that does have to be addressed.

Apparently he agreed in theory to appearing 'in court' via a video link but that wasn't taken up? Any reason why they could turn that option down without it looking suspiciously like they just want to get their hands on him?

"are we all positive, certain and sure that he didn't do anything to the two ladies who are accusing him?"

He doesn't dispute doing something to them. What he disputes, reasonably, is consent.

Whatever your view of him and the merits of his case, the following I think is undeniable:

1. he has a reasonable fear that he will be rendered to the US from Sweden.

2. he has a reasonable fear that the US would execute him.

Absolutely nobody from either Sweden or the UK will give any assurances whatever that that won't happen, which reinforces the reasonableness of those fears. On that basis, I think he's behaved reasonably rationally, with the sole observation that in his position I might have picked the Argentine embassy rather than Ecuador - but then do Argentina have a vested interest in p**sing the US off like Ecuador do? dunno.

Proverbs 28:1

He's trying to avoid facing up to his sordid little activities by spinning a hysterical conspiracy theory, backed up by the cyber tinfoil hat brigade.

IMHO

I can't speak for reasonableness/intelligence in going for the Ecuador embassy, I'm not sure on what grounds he picked it - though its evidently worked relatively well for him, though if he'd managed to get a bigger country than we couldn't have broken diplomatic relations, with Ecuador we might

I'd agree that he could be questioned by camera, but I disagree in that he could be tried by such
You can't try someone if you don't have the ability to hold on to the person - what if, being found guilty, he then didn't hand himself over, and the Ecuadorians didn't - we'd be in an even worse position than we are now

Who funds Assange/Wikileaks?

Incidentally - there's no way on earth he would be extradited from anywhere in Europe to face a possible death sentence in the US. The ECHR is quite explicit on this point.

He doesn't have that legal protection in Ecuador, funnily enough.

I'm surprised he didn't go with the Russians - he's been quite chummy with them in the past hasn't he? And we would most certainly not DARE to arrest him in transit from their embassy I'd warrant.

(or has he pissed the Russian's off too these days? His list of friends diminishes by the day as he fails to realise that if you don't pick and chose who you fight with, you will stand alone one day)


I hope at least that he's now learning that actions have consequences.

Or Belarus. He released details of dissidents working against the Belarusian dictatorship to their secret police.