(edit title) Ecuador moots Assange Sweden transfer Options

[The Local]

Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino proposed Friday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be transferred from London to Sweden, where he would remain under Quito's protection.

Patino told journalists Ecuador was weighing such a transfer as a possible
alternative for Assange to "remain under our protection while also satisfying
the demands of the Swedish justice system."

Britain's foreign office was tightlipped on Saturday over the proposal.

"We've made our position very clear on Mr Assange, mainly that he has exhausted the option of appeal and we are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden and we have to carry out this obligation and we fully intend to do so," a spokesperson said.

Click to read the full article.

[Tiny Red Ant]

These "new developments" is nothing but the rehashing of old information. That is what happens when there is a continual change of a legal team. Anyways, that is not the point.
Brilliant plan. The first problem is that it is doubtful that Britain will agree to such a plan. Second Quito's jurisdiction outside of Ecuador only extends to their embassies and other diplomatic premises. Thus Assange will have to enter jurisdictions not under control of Ecuador to pull this off.
Maybe, they have a teleporter or something fictional technology.
This thing is getting weirder by the moment.

[alecLoTh]

US has categorically stated that they can neither confirm nor deny seeking his extradition from Sweden. Documents have already been filed by the US state department to have a grand jury try Assange for espionage. Sweden has a history of being a doormat, his own country has disowned him, the UK has thrown him to the wolves...there seems to be a confluence of powers all pointing to Assange's possible lifetime incarceration in the US.
Pressure is on Ecuador, mst likely from the UK, but they are playing the chess game well by hinting at the UK to offer safe passage.
We all know that the UK will do no such thing, but this will, at least expose publicly what is happening behind the scenes.

[wendist]

Can anyone explain to me how the UK can be seen as throwing Assange "to the wolves" when they quite obviously were not prepared to throw him to the americans when they had him in custody?

[alecLoTh]

@wendist
Simple, they have no judicial pretext, ie Assange had not committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the UK to warrant extradition- had the issue for his detaining been in the UK the story would be different.
He was under house arrest, but even then as a sought-after person, not as one who has been charged, tried and convicted of anything.
Because the crime is on Swedish soil, the extradition can only be served from there. I termed this as 'throwing to the wolves' because if you the UK offers 'safe passage' then the entire conundrum is solved, but that would be stepping on too many toes.
I think at this stage we all know that he will be extradited and tried. The administration is hinting at that, some Republican officials are calling for the death penalty...they have already reached end-game while the public is left wondering why Assange wont appear to defend himself from seemingly minor but trumped-up charges. But even he has is thinking a few moves ahead of what the general public is allowed to see unfold.

[Attestupa]

A really sensible move by Ecuador. Brinkmanship for sure, but it makes it very difficult for the UK and Sweden to continue this charade. We're heading into face-saving territory.
...and @alecLoTh has got it exactly right.

[sgt_doom]

@ #3, reading is fundamental, so please read this, if you have the capacity to learn:
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

[Rebel]

When Latin America was dominated by the US many of these nations were called "banana republics." What shall we call puppet regimes in Europe, "porn republics?"

[wendist]

"Simple, they have no judicial pretext, ie Assange had not committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the UK to warrant extradition- had the issue for his detaining been in the UK the story would be different.
He was under house arrest, but even then as a sought-after person, not as one who has been charged, tried and convicted of anything.
Because the crime is on Swedish soil, the extradition can only be served from there."
Two questions regarding the above.
What crime has Assange commited "on swedish soil" that the US could use as reason for an extradiction to the US?
Why does he have to have commited a crime in the UK for the british to be able to extradite him to the US?

[timbenton51]

Hague and the UK foreign office are a bunch of HYPOCRITS. They absolutely refuse to grant Julian Assange safe passage to Ecuador, but Uthman Megrahi, the Pan Am bomber TERRORIST, a killer who murdered over 300 innocent people by cowardly putting a bomb on an aircraft -- THAT GUY -- the UK grants SAFE PASSAGE TO!!!! but NOT Julian Assange. Oh, no! That wouldn't be right. You see this "sex in the morning/one-night stand" thingis such a serious "crime."
What a joke!!
Look at the fools who post on this board trying to defend the UK stance on the issue! A blind man can see that the case is 100% political, and the the UK foreign office is up to its usual calculating political tactics. They grant safe passage to one of the world's worst terrorist murderers ever, but refuse to do likwise in a bona fide case of clear political persecution. And all the while with their pompous noses in the air, bristling with righteous indignation. You can't make this stuff up!!!

[Ian C. Purdie - Sydney]

Eventually when this case is ultimately resolved and, it will be, a lot of countries [including my own], as well as a lot of commentators will be revealed as total hypocrites and/or brain dead.
The level of ignorance world-wide over published facts is absolutely astonishing, the level of government interference in national judicial systems is absolutely frightening.
How much is ostensibly impoverished Britain expending daily to keep Julian under constant surveillance? That should tell even casual readers a whole lot.

[Sven-Ingvar]

USA h as been after Assange since he was 17 actually sending troops to 1989 Melbourne Australia to look for him.Doubt if most knew then what a computer was let alone internet
Australian TV will be flogging the "Assange" story shortly
http://ten.com.au/underground.htm

[Tiny Red Ant]

Grand juries are criminal investigations as defined by the US Constitution under the authority of the US Department of Justice. Any apprehension request comes after the investigation is completed.
The Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was sentenced to life after a conviction of killing 270 people. He was allowed to return home to die on "compassionate grounds." Uthman Suleiman al-Megrahi is a Libyan minister who released 300 alleged political prisoners.
The convicted bomber Megrahi was released on 20 August 2009, long before 12 May 2010 when Hague assumed office.
There is an over obsession of one instance that occurred over 10 years ago. While ignoring that the governments of the US, British and Sweden has all changed since 2001.
The instance in question occurred shortly after September 11, 2001 as part of an investigation into the terrorist. Sweden like many countries over reacted in their desire to assist the US in bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice. However, that is no justification for the violation individuals rights.
This "constant surveillance" of wearing an electronic bracelet was part of Assange's bail condition as an alternate to being in jail. As Assange was believed to be a flight risk. This was proved true by staying the night in the Ecuador Embassy, London after seeking asylum.
The principle of dual criminality with extraditions require an accusation to be a crime in same in both states. The courts in the sending state determine if a punishment in the extradition request violates the rights of the accused.
Assange is not wanted in the US for the serious crime of sexual assault. With the accusations against Assange in some American states it would be two or four accusations of rape, not one as it is in Sweden.
Assange is only thinking of himself as usual, by using his work with Wikileaks as an excuse to avoid going to Sweden. Assange should just surrender to the Met.

[timbenton51]

@ Tiny Red Ant
"The convicted bomber Megrahi was released on 20 August 2009, long before 12 May 2010 when Hague assumed office."
It doesn't matter who was in the British foreign secretary's chair in 2009 versus today. The British foreign office is responsible for policy. The British foreign office granted safe passage to one of the greatest terrorist murderers of all time...FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
In the Assange case, a textbook case of political persecution, the British foreign office refuses to grant safe passage. The Met police are spending at least (and probably a lot more) 50,000 GBP per day to monitor Assange. Why? Because of an allegation of a torn condom? I think not.
The Assange case is a classic case of governments corrupting their own judiciaries to achieve political and foreign policy gains. Any person with no axe to grind can see.
BTW, who cares what the Pan Am bomber Megrahi's first name was? Talk about trying to distract from the main issue at hand.

[Tiny Red Ant]

Governments change this includes policies and how they implement those policies. Difference politicians and individuals for that matter have different ideas. With the change in government is a change in policies, regulations and laws.
A good example of political persecution is suing journalist who print anything that is different than the governments position. Then after they are convicted and sentenced pardoning them.
Or, imprisoning opposition voices in their home not allowing them to leave, and arresting anyone who attempts to visit them without permission.
Jumping bail to avoid accusations of sexual assault does not count.
The accusations have been publicly available for a long time now. There are four allegations in all, with the most serious being starting intercourse on a sleeping woman. The judge did address the condom issue, but more on the absurdity of that position as a defense.
@timbenton51
Your were the person who brought Megrahi into the discussion and you got the name wrong. So, before you blame someone for "trying to distract from the main issue at hand" you better make sure you can edit your comments.