Julian Assange granted Asylum in Ecuador [Archive]

Sifright

08-16-2012, 08:33 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492

Ecuador has granted asylum to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange two months after he took refuge in its London embassy while fighting extradition from the UK.

It said there were fears Mr Assange's human rights might be violated.

Foreign minister Ricardo Patino accused the UK of making an "open threat" to enter its embassy to arrest him.

Mr Assange took refuge at the embassy in June to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over assault and rape claims, which he denies.

The Australian national said being granted political asylum by Ecuador was a "significant victory" and thanked staff in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

And much nashing of teeth was had by the UK government which is now threatening to break international treaties and violate Ecuador sovereignty by storming the embassy and arresting him.

Nikose Tyris

08-16-2012, 09:47 AM

"Again: Assange repeatedly offered 1) to be questioned by Swedes in UK; 2) to go to Sweden if no extradition to US on espionage charges."

I am not a supporter of Assange until he's cleared of accusations. I am a supporter of Wikileaks in general, and there's a lot of misinformation and bad journalism.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks If you take everything from the wikileaks twitter with a grain of salt, that is.

Congrats, Ecuador, for standing up for human rights.

That feels awkward to say, for a whole number of reasons, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Ecuador) but they're definitely moving forward, and faster than the US / Canada is.

Jagos

08-16-2012, 09:54 AM

So let's see... We lost Eliot Spitzer to a sex charge... Anthony Weiner? Retired for embarassing sex charge.

And yet, Assange is fighting extradition based on a small sex charge of whether or not he used a condom.

So if you go against the government, expect a sex charge.

RobinStarwing

08-16-2012, 09:56 AM

Can we stop talking about Julian Asshole? He's an egotistical fucktard who deserves no sympathy or help no matter what he has done for freedom and what not. But this is just my opinion as everytime I see a picture of him...I keep thinking of Hidan from Naruto or a short-haired Leonard Testarossa (Full Metal Panic).

phil_

08-16-2012, 10:04 AM

As important as my anime characters are to me, I don't think a person's resemblance to them is a reliable way of judging someone's worthiness for sympathy.

rpgdemon

08-16-2012, 10:12 AM

"Small sex crimes"? Seriously? That's not "small". Sexual crimes are never "small". Is his rape, for some reason, BETTER than other rapes? To call it small is incredibly misogynistic, and is what allows the rape culture to continue existing.

Sifright

08-16-2012, 10:18 AM

"Minor sex crimes"? Seriously? That's not "small". To call it small is incredibly misogynistic, and is what allows the rape culture to continue existing.

You know I have no proof one way or another as to the veracity of the allegations against him, but it strikes me as rather interesting that the governments are all suddenly very intent on charging for sex crimes in this case when ordinarily they couldn't give a shit.

The problem is that Sexual crimes are very serious. at the same time like Nikose said Assange has repeatedly stated that he would face questioning about this in the UK where he can't be extradited to USA. more importantly in Sweden the last I heard he hasn't been actually charged with a crime he is merely wanted for questioning.

Personally i'm of the opinion he should face trial over the accusations and the truth should come out but proving anything will be incredibly difficult either way, at the same time though he shouldn't have to worry about being extradited to america to face charges of treason because FUCK YOU AMERICA he isn't one of your god damned citizens.

Nikose Tyris

08-16-2012, 10:19 AM

I am not a supporter of Assange until he's cleared of accusations.

This still stands for me. If the accusations are true, he will be charged and I will not support him. If they are not, then (hopefully) he'll be exonerated.

rpgdemon

08-16-2012, 10:26 AM

My post was mostly in response to Jagos, calling it "small sex charges".

Loyal

08-16-2012, 10:29 AM

As important as my anime characters are to me, I don't think a person's resemblance to them is a reliable way of judging someone's worthiness for sympathy.And I don't think how sympathetic a person is has anything to do with opposing the United States' usual attempts to strongarm the international community into doing their bidding. Because at the end of the day if the United States didn't want this guy's head on a pike for all the Wikileaks shenanigans nobody would give a shit about him. Or at least not to the extent they have been.

Meister

08-16-2012, 10:42 AM

Can we stop talking about Julian Asshole?
Hard to stop talking about a guy who continually has international incidents centered around him that have little to no precedence. If you like him or not, even if he's a rapist or not, he's done globally important things that are impossible to ignore. A government preparing to send its police into another government's embassy is a little above the kind of Jersey Shore annoyance that might justify a "can we stop talking about this."

But you will stop talking about him if your best argument is centered around anime, and you'll call the man by his proper name for the same reasons no one here would be permitted to talk about "Obummer."

Bells

08-16-2012, 12:19 PM

of course, globally important doesn't mean globally good...

I Dunno, Asange always rubbed me a little wrong. Yeah, what he did has a lot of positive value too... but also has great possibilities of negative consequences with little control.

And for all he did i always thought of him as having a particular special boner for the USA... on that note, i'm not really surprised the US Government is willing to do almost anything to get him under their custody... but they wont. If they were willing to storm another country under the eyes of the world to get this one guy, than they would simply be willing to have him killed under "suspicious but unprovable circumstances" so that's not going to happen...

As for his rape charges? More likely bogus... and i think the guy gets way more credit and validity than he deserves.

Sifright

08-16-2012, 12:28 PM

Magus

08-16-2012, 03:38 PM

I think it was more that it wasn't actually what we traditionally call "rape", it's something that falls under the umbrella of rape from an obscure Swedish definition of rape (involving sex where you have sex with a woman and tell her you have a condom on but it turns out you didn't actually put the condom on). Honestly though I can't remember for the life of me what it was exactly.

Like is it wrong to do that? Certainly. Should it be against the law? Sure. Is it rape in the traditional sense? No.

EDIT: I think the second rape charge might be for actual rape, though. There are two women making rape charges against him.

A Zarkin' Frood

08-16-2012, 05:42 PM

There are people who actually define the condom thing as clear cut rape equal to all other rape, yes. I don't care what it's defined as, though, because it's terrible either way.

But yeah: Aren't those charges news so old they already got dropped by the women, then picked up again because Sweden said so? Maybe my info is wrong here, but if it isn't it's a little suspicious.

Assange is a hero for making it possible to expose so much shit either way. He just might be a bastard hero or a glorious hero depending on whether or not those charges are complete bullshit.

If governments don't want us to find skeletons in their closets they should give them proper burials.

Karrrrrrrrrrrresche

08-16-2012, 05:44 PM

I definitely remember there being all sorts of sketchy details about the circumstances surrounding the case.

shiney

08-16-2012, 07:22 PM

I totally remember last time I heard about a country threatening to violate international law by invading an embassy so they could extradite someone who was not under arrest but only wanted for questioning about a possible sexual crime in another country.

This is totes about the sexual crime and/or rape and not related to anything else, at all. This is why he's completely out of line and an asshole for even daring to suggest that maybe he's not safe being extradited to the country that has more or less admitted they will instantly hand him over to the US, and there's no precedent whatsoever regarding his potential treatment, especially not where Bradley Manning is concerned. Isolated incident.

shiney

08-16-2012, 07:24 PM

I mean honestly you guys. Are you familiar with the term "trumped up charge"? If he truly did it, he deserves his punishment, but if anyone is naive enough to think the UK would invade an embassy over an alleged sexual crime then man do I have some nigerian prince emails for you.

Satan's Onion

08-17-2012, 12:42 AM

You know what pisses me right off about this?

If these rapes didn't happen, then someone--well, many someones--within my government are using rape in much the same way as a third-rate comic book writer might: as "a bad thing that's not quite as bad as murder so it'll make this guy a real good villain".

If they did happen, then the very real traumas of two women are not being investigated in earnest, but are being used as a political crowbar to pry open an embassy and get That Jerk Who Embarrassed Amurica Gawddammit.

I'm sure you can all understand why both of those scenarios piss me off. (And the hell of it is, I don't even particularly like Assange. I get a nasty gut feeling from him that he's a creepy narcissist who never did a damned thing that wasn't ultimately in service of himself.)

Amake

08-17-2012, 03:12 AM

Since his legal status of "Maybe a criminal" is somehow an argument that discredits Wikileaks, I'm guessing there won't be any serious attempts at extraditing Assange from any asylum he finds. It's the best thing that can happen to everyone who wants to silence Wikileaks; at the very least it provides a permanent distraction, while if he's caught he's going to either a) become a martyr or b) prove his innocence, implicitly proving that Wikileaks's work is just and right.

In a sane world he might be questioned as a common suspect, maybe even stand trial and be found guilty or innocent of rape and then stop being a focus for news, but somehow that scenario strikes me as unlikely.

Sifright

08-17-2012, 03:29 AM

Since his legal status of "Maybe a criminal" is somehow an argument that discredits Wikileaks, I'm guessing there won't be any serious attempts at extraditing Assange from any asylum he finds. It's the best thing that can happen to everyone who wants to silence Wikileaks; at the very least it provides a permanent distraction, while if he's caught he's going to either a) become a martyr or b) prove his innocence, implicitly proving that Wikileaks's work is just and right.

In a sane world he might be tried as a common rapist, found guilty and stop being a focus for news, but somehow that scenario strikes me as unlikely.

Assuming he is guilty which is actually you know in question. Governments have never given a shit about rape as an issue before it's pretty patently obvious why they are pretending to now.

Aerozord

08-17-2012, 03:36 AM

Loyal

08-17-2012, 09:33 AM

while if he's caught he's going to either a) become a martyr or b) prove his innocence, implicitly proving that Wikileaks's work is just and right.

Except that if he's caught he's not going to be tried and found innocent, he's going to be quietly disappeared and then either tortured or executed. The United States government just does not give a fuck.

RobinStarwing

08-17-2012, 10:47 AM

I think you can still argue the Asshole claim if the opposite is true. While its certainly possible government is using this as an excuse to lock up a political prisoner, another possibility is him using his status as clout to escape punishment for actual crimes.

Personally I think this is about as morally gray as you can get because we have no way of knowing the truth. Heck its even possible both are true. Wouldn't surprise me

I actually think both are the truth and while I would like an ideal world...we ain't gettin' it any time soon partners.

But anyways, I had already disliked Julian Asshole (I will refuse to call him by name and will explain why a little bit later in this post) before realizing who he reminded me of. I always thought of him as something creepy and slimey that should stay out of the sun where we can't look at it.

As to why I refuse to call him by name? Simple, I refuse to give egotistical asshats the benefit of the respect and admiration that they crave and are addicted too. Julian to me is one of these power-hungry asshats who crave attention and will do almost anything (or maybe even anything) to get it. It's the same reason I refer to Rush Limbaugh as Rancid Lardass whenever I talk about him. I give people like this no respect and dignity and even deny them some by NOT refering to them by as much of their name as possible, replacing it with something insulting.

Oh and yes, Julian and Rancid are in the same category despite having different beliefs, though I don't know how much of their own BS they actually believe. You guys won't change that belief and I am not going to change yours.

Meister

08-17-2012, 11:02 AM

Robin, it wasn't a suggestion or request. This was your last post in this thread. Any more, for whatever reason, and you get to take a week off. Same goes for editing posts after this post's timestamp.

I don't particularly care who you apply it to but twisting people's names like that is lazy shorthand for when you don't want to write out your arguments, or you don't actually have any, and both are requirements for a good discussion. It's a style much more suited for tabloids or facebook and it simply doesn't do justice to the seriousness of the situation.

See Satan's Onion's Post for how to call someone a creepy asshole while still making a valuable contribution to the debate.

Jagos

08-17-2012, 11:12 AM

My post was mostly in response to Jagos, calling it "small sex charges".

It was. Two women were involved with having sex without a condom. One retracted her statement. The big issue, that you ignored to go on your emotional plea, was how Sweden is friends with the US to extradite him. My point was how anyone who had tried to change the system gets hit with a sex charge while the real felons screw over the system even more.

shiney

08-17-2012, 12:09 PM

It also delegitimizes the true severity (emotionally to the victim, not just criminally to the perpetrator) of sexual crimes, as stated more eloquently by SO.

Aerozord

08-17-2012, 12:28 PM

It also delegitimizes the true severity (emotionally to the victim, not just criminally to the perpetrator) of sexual crimes, as stated more eloquently by SO.

as someone that was on the other end of his particular crime, while I wouldn't compare it to the severity its not a trivial thing. Trusting someone to be honest about use of a contraceptive, and then the obvious potential of not just pregnancy but of STD transmission you were hoping to avoid it is quite troubling.

To the woman what should have just been a fun night now takes away her piece of mind and now has to see a doctor to get it back. Have you gotten a STD test before? Its not pleasant.

rpgdemon

08-17-2012, 01:08 PM

Jagos

08-17-2012, 01:28 PM

Like, if it's true, the guy forced a woman into possibly baring his child and any STDs he had, for his own sick pleasure. That's pretty terrible, and shouldn't be called a small thing.

Whether it's true or not, you shouldn't be calling it a small thing, Jagos. I'm not referring to what they're using it for, but the fact that it isn't a small thing, and shouldn't be trivialized for the sake of politics.

Let me be clear. The charges in the grand scheme of someone being extradited forcefully from a country to pay for a "crime" that isn't anything more than a matter between two consenting people makes it a small matter in this regard.

Do you truly believe that the US and the UK would go to these lengths against one man because of a sex charge?

Do you realize that Anthony Weiner got in trouble for showing the world he had one? How about Eliot Spitzer and the prostitution scandal? Hell, historically speaking, JFK was going out with women while in his presidency.

Maybe it's because I actually read the Stratfor emails, but the point here is rather simple. The government is willing to use sexual intelligence to get whatever they want. If they want control of a person and want to blackmail them, they're willing to use that since it's the simplest way to get people out of power. And no, I'm not making this a trivial matter. I'm just saying that it's what the government does (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRA7WT66RIQ) based on the information given.

They want Assange because Wikileaks exposes information. Sweden would not question Assange in the UK. How does that seem fair to you? Honestly, how is his crime of "sex without a condom" equate to Assange losing basic human rights for the US wanting to charge him under the Espionage Act?

shiney

08-17-2012, 01:49 PM

I think Jagos' argument is that there is demonstrable falsehood in the US using an alleged sexual crime such as rape (which is a local crime, not international) as leverage to discredit Assange and require his extradition to Sweden and, assumedly, the US thereafter.

I daresay he is not arguing that rape is minor or trivial. I don't infer that from his posts. What I read is him saying that a crime of this nature, true or not, is not grounds to violate sovereign territory to arrest and spirit away an individual under that territory's protection. He may have worded this poorly, but it is true. A rape, or non-consensual sex or lying about a condom or whatever the case, is a very severe thing, but not an international incident. It's a poorly constructed facade.

rpgdemon

08-17-2012, 02:11 PM

II totally agree that it's a facade, and I'm not saying it's not. I'm just disagreeing with the way it was described as small. Compared to the measures they're taking, I can understand it being called small, but in terms of the crime, it wasn't small to the women.

shiney

08-17-2012, 02:15 PM

You're splitting hairs, then. We understand it's not small to the woman. Please recognize this. We need to be able to have frank discussions about international repercussions of the actions of nations and boiling it down to suggesting that our discussion of the ludicrous actions of the UK in regards to Assange is disrespectful to a woman is pedantic. We know it's not small. But globally speaking, and considering the kind of precedent this action can and may set, the actual crime (allegedly) committed does not justify the level of response it has received.

Edit: Sorry if this comes across as dismissive? But it's obscuring the issue. We're not discussing a rape, we're discussing why someone has to petition for asylum because they are accured of an alleged crime and that someone doesn't even have a warrant out for their arrest, but is only requested for questioning, and yet extradition has been ordered by the Supreme Court of a country that dismissed his appeal? And conveniently that someone caused enormous damage to the credibility of the world's greatest superpower? And conveniently the country to which they are to be sent has an extradition treaty with the aforementioned superpower.

There is zero zero zero precedent for supreme court ordered extradition for "questioning".

Jagos

08-17-2012, 03:38 PM

Case in point.

Look what Rupert Murdoch is doing in the NY Times (http://observer.com/2012/08/new-york-times-article-on-julian-assange-asylum-scrubs-its-toilet-reference/) with Assange's reputation.

rpgdemon

08-17-2012, 04:13 PM

And yet, Assange is fighting extradition based on a small sex charge of whether or not he used a condom.

Like, this is all that I wanted to talk against, because it seemed rather dismissive of the badness of the crime. It's not the issue at hand, but if someone had said something like, "It's just because he spit on a black dude, no biggie", I'd want to point out that it was a biggie, even if it wasn't the issue at hand of his extridation.

Like, once it was clarified that it was small in terms of the reprecussions, I agreed, but the original post sounded like such a charge was not a big deal, not that it wasn't extradition worthy.

Read Jagos's post again, does it seem unreasonable to have misread it in that way?

shiney

08-17-2012, 04:22 PM

I can see where you're coming from, at least. I see it from both sides. Along the big scale of sexual crimes, that's probably small in comparison to forcibly held woman down at gunpoint and violently raped her against her will in every sense. But, it's still a violation so I can see how you'd take umbrage.

That said, latching on to it derailed the intent of the conversation. So, there's that.

But yeah, I get you.

Aerozord

08-17-2012, 04:44 PM

sadly if he is guilty these women will never get justice. Either they just use it as an excuse to punish him for something unrelated, or the opposite and he gets away scot-free by getting political asylum

Jagos

08-18-2012, 05:30 AM

WTF? So let me get this straight... Instead of picking up on the sex crimes issue where Assange isn't wanted for a crime, merely questioning, that isn't an alarm? The fact that Assange had stated he would be happy to answer questions isn't an alarm? The women allowing him to stay an extra week after the supposed rape isn't cause for alarm?

Why would you pick out a small part of someone's argument and distort the meaning so badly?

Nikose Tyris

08-19-2012, 07:46 PM

Summary of conversation so far:

Everyone supports wikileaks, everyone wants to see Assange stand trial. Assange being guilty or innocent is not something we know, but we believe a fair trial would produce this.

Acknowledged statements so far: Offers were made to hold interviews where he cannot be extradited, travel to Sweden was even suggested if they could guarantee that he would not be taken into custody and sent to the US. [Needs additional verification?]

I'd like to see more on this topic continue- like discussion on his speech today on the balcony at the Embassy, or the watching figures from rooftops across the roads.

POS Industries

08-19-2012, 08:15 PM

Case in point.

Look what Rupert Murdoch is doing in the NY Times (http://observer.com/2012/08/new-york-times-article-on-julian-assange-asylum-scrubs-its-toilet-reference/) with Assange's reputation.
It's worth noting that Murdoch owns the New York Post, not the Times.

Which is even more disappointing because this is the sort of thing I expect from the Post, and should be far above their typical standards. Of course, that might have been why they deleted it after the fact, but it's still pretty bad that it got past the paper's editors.

Bells

08-20-2012, 05:38 AM

For those who haven't seen it yet (ignore the first 20 seconds)

VvrLTBvWpd8

Jagos

08-22-2012, 07:01 PM

http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/cenk-wikileaks-julian-assange-should-be-your-hero

For those that want to look at the charges and the history.

Azisien

08-23-2012, 08:29 AM

http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/cenk-wikileaks-julian-assange-should-be-your-hero

For those that want to look at the charges and the history.

More like for those that want to listen to a guy be kind of angry at the charges and the history, assuming that timeline was accurate. And if it is, holy smokes, minor charges indeed for international arrest warrants and potentially violating sovereignty and what have you. You can just see all the countries hit by Wikileaks with their fur all spiked up in agitation because they can't get this guy.