By DeusExMacintosh

Ecuador grants Julian Assange asylum

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 cited fears that Mr Assange’s human rights might be violated.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the country.

But Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said his government would seek to negotiate with Britain over arrangements for Mr Assange to leave.

“We don’t think it is reasonable that, after a sovereign government has made the decision of granting political asylum, a citizen is forced to live in an embassy for a long period,” he said.

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.

BBC News


  1. Posted August 20, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    DD, do you want a nation are of laws and or men? The latter is tyranny. The former means the parties participate in the court process and abide by its rulings.
    In any debate one needs rationality and logic. The underpinning of logic is some basis for argument or it is mere assertion. What you call schmevidence is a fact or facts which upon which you can hang a conclusion. If you rely on “an array” (a collective noun no doubt) of what US politicians say you are surely drifting into dangerous waters. An “array” of them have been both in favour of bail outs and against them, in favour of more but also less support for Medicare and both for and against mining in sensitive environmental zones. More analysis and less FOX News methinks. How come is it that you know of a “secret” grand jury indictment under the the Espionage Act? Care to give particulars, say the date the grand jury convened, where it convened, what was the contents of the bill of indictment and have they concluded their considerations. Like most things, Chinese whispers and the febrile imagination of observers, diplomats and commentators doesn’t really do much for any discussion. As for the problems with the Framework Agreement that issue is not relevant here is it? It did not feature in any decision I read on the subject.
    The real issue now is that Assange has breached his bail conditions. As far as the UK government is concerned that is unacceptable. No justice system can tolerate that sort of nonsense. To let it pass would be to risk undermining the bail system. They will wait him out and eventually slap the bracelets on him. And fair enough. If someone did that after a lengthy extradition fight in Australia and then ran to an embassy the authorities would wait for him or her to surrender themselves. They would not get a pass.

  2. Mel
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    fxh @48:

    “At the risk of appearing rational:
    Why can’t Assange appear before a Swedish court (or police interview) by video link. ”

    If I intended lying through my teeth I would definitely want video hookup rather than an actual court room confrontation. No one, not even alleged rape victims, should have the option of a video hookup unless they are minors.

    At the risk of appearing even more rational than fxh, may I suggest this should be obvious to even the dimmest Assange-o-phile.

    I also agree completely with SL about the inappropriateness of keyboard warriors adjudicating on alleged crimes before the courts deliver a verdict. I think it is an unethical thing to do and we’ve already seen cases where innocent people have been the victim of intense hate campaigns in the blogosphere, such as the Duke Lacrosse Three who were hounded by feminist turds including Vivian Smythe (tigtog). Thanks at least in part to the hate campaign drummed up by blog turds, the three Duke lads were forced out of their homes and had to go into hiding to escape a lynch mob that included the New Black Panthers, FFS.

    I would also like to spank derrida derider for undermining my argument about the Left, at least in this particular historical epoch, being less prone to hysteria and conspiracy theories than the Right.

    Now where’s my coffee …

  3. fxh
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    Given that I’m not a “Assange-o-phile” then I can’t be the dimmest. Neither have I been “adjudicating on alleged crimes before the courts deliver a verdict”

    Assange has jumped bail in England.

    He should appear before Swedish courts on the sexual assault charges. I asked why this couldn’t be by video.

    I don’t think Sweden will hand him over to USA – but it is possible.

    I wouldn’t want to be him and be extradited to USA.

    I don’t think USA would execute him – if he was charged or detained there.

    I wouldn’t want to be him and be extradited to USA and charged or detained. Particularly as the Presidential elections hot up.

    USA has a bad reputation with people it deems threatening to national security

    who were hounded by feminist turds including Vivian Smythe (tigtog).

    You are charming.

  4. Mel
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    fxh @53: “He should appear before Swedish courts on the sexual assault charges. I asked why this couldn’t be by video.”

    For the reason I’ve already identified.

    “You are charming.”

    Smythe (a) publicly acknowledges she blogs as tigtog (b) has a potty mouth and (c) has a habit of making false sexual assault allegations. As Smythe is the Andrew Bolt of Australian feminism, the word turd is not inappropriate.

  5. derrida derider
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Mel, if you don’t like video then Assange has also offered to be interviewed IN PERSON by as many Swedish prosecutors as they like, so long as they come to him and not vice versa. He is still offering it if they care to visit Ecuador’s embassy.

    And Peter Clarke, how the hell can you say the Framework Agreement wasn’t relevant here? It is the reason that, as SL herself says, Robinson was put in the ridiculous position of having to argue Sweden didn’t really have a legally recognisable (by the UK) justice system, because the merits of the specific case were not relevant. Since that agreement (cooked up by Brussels bureaucrats, not even the pollies BTW), once a European Arrest Warrant is issued then European courts can only avoid honouring it on very limited grounds – the motivation for its issuance or the dodginess (legal and factual) of the underlying case notwithstanding. I’m not arguing impropriety by the UK courts here – just that Assange is far from the first case where this has led to fun and games.

  6. TerjeP
    Posted August 22, 2012 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    Looking at this from the point of view of Julian Assange. If he knows himself to be innocent of the Swedish charges, and having being previously sent on his way by Swedish authorities, then it is understandable that he may be highly suspicious of the motives behind the extradition. If he knows himself to be guilty but does not wish to be punished then he also has good cause to avoid extradition.

    SL’s point about no “mens rea” for rape in Sweden leaves open the possibility that he knows himself to be innocent but he is actually guilty. I must admit that a legal system that creates such a scenario may be common, as SL asserts, but it is still perverse in my view.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *