Julian Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy

[ComradeChe]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...53a8b7fd8d3872

[RedAnarchist]

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is seeking political asylum at Ecuador's London embassy, the country's foreign minister has said.

"Ecuador is studying and analysing the request," Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters in Quito.

On 14 June, Britain's Supreme Court dismissed Mr Assange's bid to reopen his appeal against extradition to Sweden over alleged sex crimes.

He has denied the allegations, saying they are politically motivated.

The Supreme Court has given him until 28 June before extradition proceedings can start.

Swedish prosecutors want to question him over allegations of rape and sexual assault made by two female former Wikileaks volunteers in mid-2010 but have not filed any charges.

Mr Assange, whose Wikileaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses, claims the sex was consensual.

'Minimum guarantees'
In a statement, Ecuador's embassy said he had arrived there on Tuesday afternoon to seek asylum.

"As a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights, with an obligation to review all applications for asylum, we have immediately passed his application on to the relevant department in Quito," it said.

"While the department assesses Mr Assange's application, Mr Assange will remain at the embassy, under the protection of the Ecuadorean government."

It said the decision to consider the bid for asylum "should in no way be interpreted as the government of Ecuador interfering in the judicial processes of either the United Kingdom or Sweden."


Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said Mr Assange had claimed he was being persecuted
Mr Assange issued a statement, saying he was "grateful to the Ecuadorean ambassador and the government of Ecuador for considering my application".

Associated Press quoted Mr Patino as telling reporters Mr Assange had written to Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa saying he was being persecuted.

Mr Patino said that the Australian had claimed "the authorities in his country will not defend his minimum guarantees in front of any government".

Mr Assange said he would not be protected from being extradited to "a foreign country that applies the death penalty for the crime of espionage and sedition," Mr Patino said.

The anti-secrecy campaigner fears extradition to Sweden may lead to him being sent to the US to face separate charges relating to Wikileaks, for which he could face the death penalty.

Swedish assurance
But Swedish authorities have said the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) would intervene if Mr Assange was to face the prospect of "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair trial" in the US.

Mr Assange could still take his case against extradition to the ECHR and has until 28 June to make the move.

Vaughan Smith, a friend who put Mr Assange up at his Norfolk home until December 2011, told the BBC he understood why he was seeking asylum.

"There's been an organised campaign to undermine him in recent months in Britain," Mr Smith said. "And he believed he would not get justice in Sweden."

Wikileaks has posted an alert on its Twitter feed: "ALERT: Julian Assange has requested political asylum and is under the protection of the Ecuadorian embassy in London."

It said Ecuador had offered asylum as early as November 2010.

Ecuador's deputy foreign minister said in 2010 his country was offering Mr Assange residency because it wanted to give him the opportunity to freely present the information he had.

However, President Rafael Correa subsequently dismissed the idea, which he said neither he nor Mr Patino had approved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18514726

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't understand why he doesn't just go to Sweden. It's not like he has a warrant out for his arrest there, he's just wanted for questioning.

Apparently it's part of some conspiracy (or so his side has said) to get him to be extradited from Sweden to the USA. But the UK has extradition agreements with the USA too, and I've read that they're actually stronger than the extradition agreements the USA has with Sweden. So I don't get it.

[Sam_b]

I don't understand why he doesn't just go to Sweden.

Because he's a rapist.

[Yazman]

Because he's a rapist.

I'll believe this when it's substantiated. I actually do support the principle, "innocent until proven guilty." Until that time this does seem like an obvious frameup to me.

[Bronco]

He's on quite good terms with the Ecuadorian President I believe, he had him on his show on RT, which is quite ironic in a sense given that Correa is currently trying to place limits on the freedom of the press

[svenne]

I'll believe this when it's substantiated. I actually do support the principle, "innocent until proven guilty." Until that time this does seem like an obvious frameup to me.

Isn't it a tad hard to prove him innocent, since he refuses to go to Sweden? I think it's pretty obvious Assange's not entirely innocent in this case, and that he knows he'll be sentenced if he comes here.

[ed miliband]

strange fellow

[Sam_b]

I'll believe this when it's substantiated. I actually do support the principle, "innocent until proven guilty." Until that time this does seem like an obvious frameup to me.

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.

[Yazman]

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.

I think it's pretty plain for all to see that you are using a very underhanded tactic here, attempting to paint me as sexist and supporting patriarchy simply because I don't accept an assumption of guilt. This has nothing to do with it - if Assange was accused of murdering somebody, or raping a small boy, or armed robbery, etc I STILL would not accept an assumption of guilt. There is NO situation where it is acceptable to treat a person as guilty without a trial. Let it be proven first. This is the very reason why I am an atheist - I fully expect claims to be proven. I don't just accept them.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be tried in court for it, but I'm saying that it's unjust to presume guilt.

However, I think Assange is well within his right to seek asylum as he is not receiving any of the protection or assistance that he is entitled to as an Australian citizen. He is effectively abandoned by them, the same state that has actively sought to apprehend him and turn him over to the US.

But your post here is extremely underhanded. You might as well paint me as a nazi for supporting the Nuremburg Trials, or as an islamic fundamentalist for supporting a trial for Osama (and opposing his killing).

[Sam_b]

Usual nonsense Assange-supporting chauvenism.

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2012/0...e-is-a-rapist/ - this more than ever. Fuck Assange and his apologist fanboys.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I don't understand why he doesn't just go to Sweden. It's not like he has a warrant out for his arrest there, he's just wanted for questioning.

Apparently it's part of some conspiracy (or so his side has said) to get him to be extradited from Sweden to the USA. But the UK has extradition agreements with the USA too, and I've read that they're actually stronger than the extradition agreements the USA has with Sweden. So I don't get it.

On the matter of why Britain didn't extradite Assange to the US themselves, I suggest you read this post. I found it informative: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#WUKJA
Although if you wish to ignore it because of the site I gleaned it from, fine.

In my opinion any cursory glance at the case will reveal that the charges are trumped up at the very least. The Swedish state has not even filed any formal charges against Assange. As for the so-called conspiracy, there is a strong indication following the Stratfor email leaks that the US has drawn up a sealed indictment from a secret grand jury for Assange's arrest. Considering the measures that the Obama administration has taken against whistleblowers thus far, I don't think the possibility should be discounted.

@sam_b: If you're seriously expecting that we treat that blog post as evidence of Assange's guilt, you're sorely mistaken. You seem to lack any critical faculties as to the matter of Assange's guilt or innocence. I hope you can rectify this in the near future.

[Yazman]

Usual nonsense Assange-supporting chauvenism.

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2012/0...e-is-a-rapist/ - this more than ever. Fuck Assange and his apologist fanboys.

I don't care about Assange, what I care about is that you're proclaiming a human being guilty WITHOUT TRIAL. If such a trial had already happened, fine, call him a rapist or a deviant or whatever the fuck you want to call him, I don't care. The problem here is that you're stating somebody is guilty without it being proven beyond all reasonable doubt in public. The expectation that claims should be proven conclusively and beyond doubt is a part of having a scientific mindset, and it's important when thinking critically. As an atheist I place a high value on this, as well.

My response to you was nothing to do with what Assange did and everything to do with criticism of your automatic assumption of guilt. It has massive repercussions for society.

So yes of course Sam_b, let's not have a trial at all, let's just proclaim him guilty and send him off to the gulag. Who cares about accountability or justice, somebody made a claim so it must automatically be true right? Let's begin the purging while we're at it, since we're going to do away with the presumption of innocence!

[Bronco]

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.

There was a thread a couple of weeks ago about a kid who had to serve 5 years in jail because of a false rape allegation, would that not suggest that maybe someone's word is not always enough to decide if someone is guilty or not?

[Sam_b]

The fact of the matter is that it is a copout for the real issue, and the real issue that rape conviction is so low, being that nobody ever ever ever seems to, you know, believe the woman. Your tacit support for his asylum claim when he's running from accountability for his actions flatly contradict what you say. Like it or not you are apologising for Assange.

EDIT: http://www.2ndcouncilhouse.co.uk/blog/2011/08/04/65/ is very good here, and exposes most of what people are saying here about either the bourgeois justice system and it's accountability, and to respond to this idea of women 'crying rape'.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't care about Assange, what I care about is that you're proclaiming a human being guilty WITHOUT TRIAL. If such a trial had already happened, fine, call him a rapist or a deviant or whatever the fuck you want to call him, I don't care. The problem here is that you're stating somebody is guilty without it being proven beyond all reasonable doubt for the public.

RevLeft mod is bourgeois liberal. News at 11.

[Yazman]

RevLeft mod is bourgeois liberal. News at 11.

Yes, because opposing imprisonment and punishment of people by the state without trial is certainly bourgeois!

Another supporter of purges and gulags here, I see.

[wsg1991]

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.

how did this guy became a Forum moderator ?

the fact he is using very cheap tactic ,
'if you say this woman is lying or assange might be innocent , then you are against Women rights '
this kind of tactics is the same used by Zionists : if you are against Isreal action then you are anti Semitic



then removing points from my reputation 'taking feminist stance should be what every moderator do '

i don't think it's a feminist stance to say that any Rape accuse is automatically true

perhaps the real feminist stance is that women and men have the same ability to false accuse someone , which no one did deny here

[PhoenixAsh]

The fact why rape convictions are so low is because they habitually boil down to "her word" against "his word" without any proof or evidence to substantiate either claim. Also....inter sex rape conviction rates are equally as low for the same reason.

It is not a matter of who you believe or not but a matter of what can be proven. And simply put...nobodies word is good enough to form the sole basis of a conviction.


Or as the lawyer of the two women puts it:


"In Sweden, like in other countries, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecutor. The prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a client is guilty of the crimes. Beyond reasonable doubt is very high – I don't know whether she can reach that level. And history tells you that you can reach different judgments on the same material depending on how you interpret that material."



What Sam_b is doing has nothing to do with burgeoisie or not. It has to do with his assessment that somebody is guilty because a woman says so and he decides to believe the woman because he considers this to be more revolutionary. He also considers anybody who does not simply believe one side or the other but wants to see some proof to be burgeoisie....and excusing or advocating patriarchy because they do not automatically support and unconditionally believe a woman. Instead of making this a debate about guilty because of evidence he is trying to make this a debate about wether or not revolutionaries should side with a woman no matter what....and that any man is automatically guilty based on words alone and not on any evidence...because he is a man and a woman says he is guilty. He is making this about wether or not one sex is more believable because of their sex instead of the evidence.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

The fact of the matter is that it is a copout for the real issue, and the real issue that rape conviction is so low, being that nobody ever ever ever seems to, you know, believe the woman. Your tacit support for his asylum claim when he's running from accountability for his actions flatly contradict what you say. Like it or not you are apologising for Assange.

No, rape conviction isn't the fact of this matter. In fact, the alleged rape is actually playing the role of "copout". It is a distraction from the broad political issues at hand regarding the leaking of sensitive government material that harms the efforts of imperialism in general, the United States government in particular. If this was simply a matter of rape, how can you account for the fact that Assange is being placed in the yoke of a 2002 extradition law that was intended for purposes of "counter-terrorism"? You have no evidence that Assange actually raped anybody except your blind passion. And again, that blog post doesn't cut it.