They would not go near Russians or Chinese embassies .
What happens if they give him diplomatic passport ?

Excellent point

yep! fair play to them – standing up to Sweden and the UK – long time human rights abusers!

Ecuador with its unimpeachable record is indeed correct to protect someone who has only been accused of something minor like sexual assault!

He had not been accused of sexual assault, he is wanted for questioning Rob. A slight difference lad.

well when why is he so reluctant to go there??

Did you read the above article?

did you read the piece rob? sweden will turn him over to america, and thats the last we will hear of him.

get off your soapbox about human rights abuses, everywhere commits them, sure didnt britains finest execute a poor innocent brazilian man on the tube not so long ago?

so in your eyes the risk that America might call him to account for blatantly obtaining and releasing confidential information trumps any possible sexual assault questions that he may need to answer?

Rob, if you were to investigate the specifics of the alleged rape you’d soon realize that it’s a complete farce. America want to nail this guy to wall for what he’s done to them.

Brian – how could I investigate those specifics if the police haven’t even had the opportunity to question the person at the centre of the allegations!?
Exactly why should Assange not be asked to answer these questions – because he’s afraid he might have to then answer other questions about other laws he may have broken?? would that not be a good thing??

Rob, Ecuador suggested that Assange could be questioned by Swedish police in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. That would have solved the problem, but they, of course, refused.

@Rob,

There is lots of stuff out there if you could be bothered to look, I already posted this below but here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAPBbxOw7Jw

@ Rob

Julian Assange has not been charged with any crime.

He waited in Sweden for over a month after the initial charge, then had full permission to leave the country.

He has offered to be available for questioning in London, at the Swedish Embassy or over Skype.

Why is Sweden being obstructionist? Why wont they or the US provide any assurances?

Sweden and the US end up looking bad – and a lot of people around the world are taking a pretty hard look at exactly how ‘free’ these countries are and how much they allegedly value transparency and democratic free speech.

I suggest that you do a little bit of basic research on the subject matter before wittering half baked half though out, ill-informed opinions.

@ Padraic – are you really suggesting that the US and Sweden are the only countries that like to keep some secrets?
what gives me the right to take your secrets and publish them? or vice versa? the legendary “public interest”?? or the more commonly found “selt interest”?

No Rob, I am not suggesting that. However, these are the two relevant countries in this particular news story. Therefore, that is why I am making reference to them.

If this was a news piece about Russia and Uganda, I would be refering t tese nations and not to the US or Sweden.

If a nation is foolish enough to let national secrets leak into the public domain, then, they should try harder to keep them national secrets. We live in the information age. Once it’s ‘out there’ it is out there, and there is no taking it back.

Please tell me what should happen to Julian Assange. What would adequate justice look like to you? Please go into a little detail when explaining.

POC – i’m not looking for justice here – i wouldn’t dare claim to know enough about the facts!

but what i can see clearly is that a serious % of people seem to consider that Assange should not need to go through judicial process – and instead they support the decision of a leftist country which they know or care nothing about. this makes me uncomfortable tbh. I don’t believe that he will receive an unfair trial in Sweden or in the US – and i dont believe either that Ecuador are doing this for the greater good but based on something he has most likely promised them (obviously this is just my opinion)! but i do think that in order for the principle of accountability to remain in our society he should have to answer for his actions – not run from them!

and no i dont think Skype or Twitter counts!

and ps your “hide your secrets better” argument is nonsense! based on that approach we could never prosecute anyone for anything! you should have hid your money better – carried a gun to avoid being mugged etc etc

@ Rob: Give it a rest Rob will you? Los the battle with the rape rant now you are trying a different route. Look at all the thumbs down you are getting!

@ Rob – you’re a victim… it’s time to start thinking for yourself mate.

@ Rob

If I could avoid extradition, then I would. Your argument is a little all over the place and flabby at best. The ghastly massacre of red thumbs that all of your points are receiving would probably be proof of this. Time to find a new article to comment on pal.

Will / Kevin – i’ll tap out here so!

didn’t realise it was a popularity contest! oops!

@Rob

You’re right in the sense that this shouldn’t be a popularity contest, but you openly admit that don’t know very much/anything about the case and the then you proceed to make lazy, vague comments. You shouldn’t be surprised if people don’t respect you for it.

I’m going out on a limb and suggesting that with regard to Assange’s behaviour, he has one or two secrets that he’d prefer wiki didn’t leak.
I hope he is extradited, and that if he is innocent, he behaves accordingly. Because he sure as hell ain’t right now.

i’ll take that point Brian – but tbh i think thats only half of the reason for the red thumbs. i just think primarily that people see Assange as a crusader who deserves protection – and i genuinely dont understand what he’s done to achieve such loyalty!

apolgies POC for the lack of statistics to support the above – i’ll get my research team on it right away!

@rob even the simplest fool would realise the “sexual assault” fiasco is a good old fashioned smear campaign by the u.s/british to undermine and eventually detain assange…

@ Rob: This is supposed to be a forum for debate not back slapping or consensus, so I wouldn’t really be concerned about red thumbers. Life would be dull if we agreed the time. As for others telling you to shut up… well clearly they don’t want to engage in debate if that’s the only retort they can come up with.

@ Rob

Right well I would consider myself to be amongst those that consider him to be “a crusader who deserves protection”. He has caught numerous western governments telling red faced lies to their people/exposed them for criminal activity. If democracy is to work then the government must be held accountable for it’s actions, in order for this to happen the public must be kept informed, the established media have failed miserably to do so. Assange has stepped in to fill the void.

Surely you agree that the people have a right to know when their government is lying to them? If so then I believe it is vital for whistle blowers like Assange must be protected. If you don’t agree with that then let’s have your reasons why?

Andrew. He HAS been accused by two female assistants. He does not deny having sex with them. They deny it was consensual

@ Brian: I think you are mixing up Assange and the legal protection for Wikileaks as a media source. Journalists (or whatever term applies to Assange) are still subject to laws like all other individuals.

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”

Brian – at the risk of crashing the site with red thumbs – yes i do think sometimes governments need to lie to the people – and yes they most definitely need to lie to other governments!

we all lie – all the time – you tell your gf she looks good even though its not always the case – you say your bus was late even though you slept in etc etc

yes they are white lies – but governments also have their reasons – take the current austerity situation – the government have known for quite some time – and i hope have been e-mailing each other discussing how f*&ked we are financially – but publicly they need to play the role of the responsible parent – we are ok – we will be ok – theres nothing to worry about – even though they know its not true.

they do this because not to tell the lies would actually lead to a worse situation for us economically – similar to the greeks – who we can all see dont believe they can get out of this mess – and therefore our confidence in them reduces.

its not nice and pretty – and its certainly not a principle that we’d like to teach our kids – but we all do it – and if we were the government we’d do exactly what they do!

in my opinion etc etc – again this is not researched and therefore i am at the mercy of POC debating analysis!

Cian, you appear to be suggesting that the two women in Sweden who made sworn statements accusing Assange are a) agents of the US government and b) perjurers. I’d be a little bit more cicrcumspect if I were you.

First and foremost, the US has not made any real attempt to get him removed to the States, any attempt they did make was for window dressing. That renders the argument that Sweden will turn him over useless.
Second, Assange is only wanted for questioning.
Third, the chances are that Assange is going to be extradited (rightly so) to Sweden anyway. The only way he can get around that is by remaining in the Ecuador Embassy for evermore.
Fourth, if he does decide to remain there for evermore, all Britain has to do is withdraw the Embassy, and they can arrest him then.
Assange is wanted for questioning in relation to sexual assault, something which I would consider to be very serious. To those of you arguing on behalf of Assange, are you condoning his behaviour, and furthermore, if he is found guilty, are you condoning those that sexually assault?
Finally, what would you be saying if it was a member of the Quinn family that went on the run? Oh wait…!

@ Michael – are you REALLY suggesting that anyone on this website is suggesting that Rape is ok? Secondly, do you think that the UK Gonernment would persist with the same resolve for any run-of-the-mill sexual offender? (not that I’m suggesting Assange is a sexual offender) In any event, If you believe that you will believe anything. Another victim by the sounds of things…

@ Michael – are you REALLY suggesting that anyone on this website is suggesting that Rape is ok? Secondly, do you think that the UK Gonernment would persist with the same resolve for any run-of-the-mill sexual offender? (not that I’m suggesting Assange is a sexual offender) In any event, If you believe that you will believe anything. Another victim by the sounds of things.

If you support Assange, I would see it that you are condoning his behaviour.
Do you think Ecuador would have provided asylum to any run of the mill sex offender? Not that I’m suggesting a lack of innocence.
Re your victim response – how patronising.

Rob watch Safehouse. It’s the same principle that the US wants Assange

Frankly, the UK (and their masters, the USA) recognise only whatever bloody suits them!

So it seems, worryingly!

This is a criminal case, the Quinn case is a civil one. So the same laws don’t apply, luckily for young Mr Quinn it seems!

Firstly to step up he needs legs to to stand on for at the moment, he tries do anything or step outside that embassy he is off to the US via Sweden and then the world will hear no more of J. Assange. He will be in a cell next to Bradley Cooper and never see daylight again.

They’d want to be very very careful, sure they could storm the building and take him but it’ll open one big massive can of worms for them that they may not be easily able to close.

Ummm well I applaud your logic you seem to know it all very commendable.

Anyway I reject your reality and substitute me own :)

You CAN NOT be charged with our being first arrested and questioned. It’s called investigating. Allegations come to light they must be investigated hence arrest.

See one thing I learned from looking at people who know it all and nothing at all at the same time is that common sense, it’s not that common.

This sheds more light: http://internationalextraditionblog.com/2010/12/08/julian-assange-sweden-and-u-s-extradition-treaty/

Exactly what I was thinking. The UK has had a “special relationship” with the US for 70 years now, or so we’re told. So why send him to Sweden first?

Plus many on this who are slamming the US’s alleged role are active supporters of Obama. If he’s such a decent sort, why the fear?

nah don’t think so. but should not be done. no country would risk going against the UK over that. worst that would happen is they would close it and cut diplomatic relations and i think the uk would view it as so what.

but they should not go inside, just wait him out

If you can google it, its not secret. lol. there’s enough cloak and dagger stuff here without adding to it!

The exact same things are said by the private media about Chavez even though his record on poverty and such speak for themselves. Expect a massive media and government agenda against Ecuador.

You’re probably right Niall, but international politics is by its very nature is about power. Everybody that wants Assange has their own agenda with power attached in some way.

And let’s not forget, Assange’s reasons for wikileaks weren’t all about the truth or public interest either. It was motivated by power as much as anything else.

Niall is that a fair trade for the US human rights issues around the world. They support non democratic powers all over the world that actively engage in human rights abuses. They themselves are the same.

Were you there in Sweden at the time the alleged sexual assaults happen? It’s just you seem so certain. Maybe you should go to the Swedish police with your evidence.

http://www.google.ie

He revealed the truth.

Got laid. Allegedly.

In short,
- He was involved in the leaking of thousands of private documents belong to the USA which embarrassed the hell out of them, it also included videos of them killing unarmed people in Iraq which they later claimed had weapons.

- He was later accused of two counts of sexual assault on two volunteers of wikileaks which he states were consented but apparently the women say were not,

- His fear and rightly so is if he ends up in Sweden then the USA will fight to get their hands on him due to what he did at Wikileaks.

Lots of details on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

imho it all comes across like a plan for the USA to get their hands on him

I found this video very informative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAPBbxOw7Jw

Let me know what you think

The US argument doesn’t apply – the States have not made any attempt to get him there. The chances are they’ve moved on.
Assange should too.

He had consensual sex with two adult women.

Now there are claiming it was technically rape because they say NOW, he did not wear a condom.
One of the women by the way, has been linked directly to the CIA.

exactly :) but….. he has no way out of that building without being in uk jurisdiction. he is snookered that way. unless he wants to spend the rest of his life in the building

…Or if he’s made a Ecuadorian diplomat!

interesting biggins never thought of that. but im sure to be a diplomat in a country like the uk they would first have to recognize you as that. just saying. i dont know how it works but i would imagine if another country wanted to send a mass murderer as a diplomat he could be refused by the entry country. But you do have a good point i admit

He went through all the British courts to stop himself from being sent to Sweden and when that didn’t work he gave 2 fingers to the British justice system just because he didn’t get the outcome he wanted. This is a man that does not care about any countries laws unless it’s to suit himself.

Oh please, justice system in the US, Britain, Sweden or pretty much anywhere in the world has been bought and paid for a long time ago. There might be justice in trival crap but in matters that effect the big picture, there is no justice.

@ Barry Doyle

Sounds like a few Quinn’s there don’t it!

Is an embassy when UK & US say so..
Democracy is like a religion full of BS,people only use it when it suits them..cos in my eye that embassy cant be touch if that happens then every embassy in the world is just another house with windows..

Storm the embassy!!!!!!!
Make for good TV viewing

Also they should adverise the time so I will have beer etc

sure we’re all dead men walking…might as well stand up on the way to the grave..otherwise you end up brain-dead like medred.

If the UK raids the embassy I will loose all respect I have for them. I bet it won’t go down to well in the world and public opinion. If it was an American, Russian or Chinese embassy I bet the British wouldn’t go near it with force.

nail on the head paddy. but how is it to be proven one way or another if he refuses the investigation. He should be in sweden innocent and then proven one way or another.

If the US wanted him so badly they would have got him in the UK their closest ally

Stuff Uncle Sam and his illegitimate British child!

does not matter what he is wanted for there is a European arrest warrant for him end of story it must be complied with. It will not matter to the uk if its for stealing 100 euro or murdering a million the warrant is the same it has to be executed. I actually think that fact they are doing this is a really good thing.

to many people here comment about the us taking him they have absolutely no proof of that. This man is accused of rape the allegations have to be investigated. he must be arrested.

Look at it this way if YOUR sister or mother said she was raped (yes do please imagine it they coming to you crying saying i was raped) and they guy had left the country would you not like to see the correct procedure followed. how would you then feel people saying no dont send him back for questioning or trail in a COURT OF LAW

The problem with high horses is that the landings are sore

Comment above is in reply to biggins31.

Obviously meant to say beatification in my original comment also, stupid auto correct!!!

Since 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, embassies have been regarded as areas where its with allowed privilege, that the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country.

If England stupidly decides to forget about this long standing convention just to that they can get their way – they are declaring that its open season for other countries to do same for other embassies also around the world – including their own!
“Sanctuary” as such will no longer be possible really in the world and that will include some day, for Irish citizens too.

Hi,

Ecuador is the one breaking international law by using its premises to harbour a man accessed of rape. He can’t be granted political asylum for a non political crime such as rape. Ecuador are abusing their premises.

Assange has exhausted all of his legal options in the UK therefore he has to be extradited. The UK FCO has previously communicated this to the Ecuadorian government.

@ James Dunne

I suggest you look up the legalities of embassies: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17905985

MANY government have stood over the Vienna Convention. Only a stupid very few since 1961 have ignored it at their own peril.

ANY person can be given sanctuary of they are deemed by a government that their lives are maliciously being persecuted above and beyond what they might deem is fair and goes into unfairness.

As Assange or his legal team has yet to be shown ANY clear evidence and/or more – rather England just now wants to extradite him on verbal hearsay, this has been deemed by a foreign government to be unfair – thus the sanctuary.

Hi again,

Just reading an article on the Guardian’s website and it quotes a Professor Eileen Denza a legal expert from University College London,

“Diplomatic asylum is regulated by customary law and there are a number of treaties. But under customary law, the embassy or visiting state is only allowed to give diplomatic asylum to a refugee and in exceptional circumstances”

These circumstances fall into two categories:
•For the purpose of saving someone’s life or from injury.
•If that person has no prospect of receiving a fair trial.

Denza said the law in Ecuador has never shown to be “significantly different” to the UK or Europe and that she didn’t believe Assange was “in danger of the mob”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-asylum-live

@ James Dunne

Professor Eileen Denza has one opinion – other of equal or more stature and qualifications have stated different.
At the end of the day, sanctuary can be applied for and given as the Ecuador has stated, it fears that Mr Assange’s human rights might be violated.
If a country fears that for a person, they, the Ecuador government are apparently within their own government right to award sanctuary according to their opinions/assessments – REGARDLESS of other countries laws which say different.
If England countries wish to challenge Ecuador’s legal ability to award protection and the legal grounds for doing so, they will have to do so from within Ecuador borders and in their state courts there.

REGARDLESS of the man involved, embassy territory has ALWAYS been seen by decent countries as sacrosanct – as mush as they don’t like it.

If the English forces are told to go in and get him – its going to have very serious repercussions the world over.

Well said.

Don’t forget also that some of the information his organisation leaked put lives at risk. No government can stand by and let that continue.

He’s willing to give those answers = he has REPEATEDLY stated this and its on record.
If Sweden will guarantee that they will now cave to the USA bullying, in order to get him, he’s very willing to return home, to answer if he actually was wearing a condom (yes, they are using that law to actually to after him!) or not during CONSENSUAL sex he had with two full adult women, one of whom has been linked to the CIA!

* If Sweden will guarantee that they will now NOT cave…

Correction.

If only all rape suspects were pursued with such vigour.

He isn’t refusing to answer questions he’s just refusing to go back to Sweden because he thinks he’s be extradited to the US. He has volunteered to answer any and all questions remotely.

Lots of innocent people run & hide. Some innocent people that don’t run end up in prison, on death row or die in shallow graves. That’s why we recognize refugee and asylum seeker status in most countries in the world. Guilty people run too, but running isn’t proof of guilt.

Sure innocent people are never found guilty! Take your head out of the sand will you?

They do if the USA want their hands on them over the fact that they released documents and videos that made them look like fools and showed them killing unarmed civilians in Iraq

A very simple example of the information released by wikileaks includes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

I suggest you watch it and they think about why the USA may want this mans head on a block

Allowing his asylum is only a jab at Britain on behalf of Argentina. It goes both way folks.

@ Barry Doyle.

You clearly never heard of the A-Team.