Intro: "The Ecuadorian government announced on Thursday that it will grant WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange asylum, defying threats from the UK government that British authorities would forcibly seize Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy if Ecuador granted Assange's request."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange awaits decision on his application for asylum as diplomatic row brews between UK and Ecuador. (photo: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP)
Ecuador Grants Assange Asylum, Defying UK Threats
16 August 12
he Ecuadorian government announced on Thursday that it will grant WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange asylum, defying threats from the UK government that British authorities would forcibly seize Assange from the Ecuadorean embassy if Ecuador granted Assange's request.
"We have decided to grant asylum to Julian Assange," announced Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino in Spanish to the sound of cheers from spectators in Quito.
"The UK government should respect the decision of the Ecuadorian government," he said according to a live translation of his words, "and will offer the necessary warranties so that both governments can act adequately and properly representing the international rights and the right of asylum. We also trust that the excellent relations that we have between the two countries will continue to be so and will remain in tact based on the principles and values that we have shared about democracy, peace, life quality that are only possible if you represent the fundamental rights of everyone."
Patino said that Ecuador had considered Assange's claims that if extradited to Sweden to face an investigation for sex-crimes he would be further extradited to the U.S. where he would face political persecution for publishing documents that have angered the U.S. government. He said that Ecuador had come to its decision after failing to obtain assurances from Sweden that it would not extradite Assange to the U.S.
"Ecudaor requested some guarantees from Sweden that he wouldn't be extradited to the U.S. and they rejected any commitment in this sense," Patino Said.
The decision from Ecuador comes a day after officials claimed that UK authorities threatened to raid the Ecuadorean embassy to nab the WikiLeaks leader if the country didn't hand over the fugitive.
"Today we've received a threat by the United Kingdom, a clear and written threat that they could storm our embassy in London if Ecuador refuses to hand in Julian Assange," Patino told reporters on Wednesday.
On Thursday, Patino expressed outrage over the unprecedented threat and said that the UK had no right to interfere in the rights of an individual to request asylum and the rights of Ecuador as a sovereign nation to grant that asylum. No country, he said, had the right "to blackmail or threaten in any way" the sovereignty of any other country.
The UK Foreign Office issued a statement on Wednesday saying that it had "a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences and we are remain determined to fulfil this obligation. We have an obligation to extradite Mr Assange and it is only right that we give Ecuador the full picture."
The office added that it is "still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution."
Assange has a warrant out for his arrest for breach of bail if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy so passage for him out of England, under diplomatic cover, can only occur if U.K. authorities agree to let him go.
Assange appeared in person at the Ecuadorian embassy in London on June 19 seeking asylum.
Assange asserted that Australia, his native country, appeared to have no plans to protect him, which put him in a state of "helplessness," according to a statement from Ecuador's foreign ministry Tuesday. For this reason, he sought Ecuador's protection through political asylum.
U.K. authorities issued the warrant for his arrest at the time, saying he had breached his bail conditions by staying overnight at the Ecuadorian embassy. As part of his bail conditions, granted by the High Court in December 2010, Assange was required to remain at his bail address between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. each night. He has been sequestered at the embassy for eight weeks.
Metropolitan police have been stationed outside the embassy, waiting to arrest Assange if he left the premises. The Ecuadorian embassy enjoys diplomatic immunity and, while there, Assange is beyond the reach of police. If he leaves the premises, however, he will no longer be protected by diplomatic immunity. But even with his asylum granted now, UK police can stop the vehicle or helicopter he would be travelling in to get him out of the country.
Assange requested diplomatic protection and political asylum under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
Under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." However, the second clause of the article states that "the right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Assange is not, in fact, accused of political crimes. He is being sought for questioning in Sweden on rape and coercion allegations stemming from separate sexual relations he had with two women in that country in August 2010. One woman told police that Assange pinned her down to have sex with her and that she suspected he intentionally tore a condom he wore. The second woman reported that he had sex with her while she was initially asleep, failing to wear a condom despite repeated requests for him to do so. Assange has denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the sex in both cases was consensual.
His attorneys have been fighting extradition to Sweden because they say the investigation is a ruse to make it easier for the United States to further extradite him to the U.S. to face criminal charges over the publication of millions of U.S. classified diplomatic cables.
But UK prosecutor Clare Montgomery, who was in an early court proceeding representing Swedish authorities, said that even if the U.S. requested extradition of Assange from Sweden, no such extradition could take place without consent from U.K. authorities.
Swedish authorities have said Assange would be imprisoned as soon as he arrived in that country and would have a court hearing four days after extradition from the UK to determine if he would have to remain in custody.
Assange was ordered to return to Sweden in June to face the allegations after the UK Supreme Court rejected a bid to re-open his appeal case there. The judges gave him a two-week reprieve before extradition proceedings would begin, saving him from being immediately ejected from the country.
See Also: Julian Assange: Can Ecuador's Embassy be Stripped of its Diplomatic Status?
Britain Threatens to Enter Ecuador Embassy to Get Assange
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 17 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 19 June 2013
|
 18 June 2013
|
 18 June 2013
|
 19 June 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Everyone knows that extradition to Sweden for sex crimes is a bogus front to obtain Assange to be tortured like Sgt. Manning, and nothing else. The women Assange was with already stated that all interactions were voluntary on both sides and the following night, these said same women threw him a party! Does this sound like rape?
America has become an ugly monster in the world and we the people are thoroughly ashamed of this and other behavior.
If all of this was truly only over sex, England and Sweden wouldn't be reacting in such an over-the-top manner; which is only further proof that there is a deeper and much more sinister agenda going on here.
Ecuador: Kudos for your integrity.
England and Sweden: Shame on you.
America: If you hadn't done the crimes, you wouldn't have to be worried about hiding them.
I bet you are being applauded for realizing that of all the people in this country by far the best gatekeeper of this country's secrets was an Army private with, at best, a questionable history. Absolute brilliance. You must be a liberal.
Perhaps with all your brilliance you could share with us exactly what credentials Private Manning possesses that uniquely qualifies him to be the gatekeeper of America's secrets. Do you honest to God really believe that giving America's secrets to someone like Assange is good for this country? Do you honestly believe he cares on iota about the U.S.?
Despicable.
What argument can you offer to suggest he should not be tried for treason.
I didn't question Assange's role. I asked how someone could honestly believe giving our secrets to him was in America's best interests.
I am not questioning your patriotism. I am questioning your decision making.
has a sense of justice and righteousness.
Aware of this, and suspecting that the Swedes have trumped up a very weak case to get him to Sweden "for questioning" merely so that they can send him on to a US kangaroo court, he and his lawyers have made many proposals that the Swedes question him in Britain. They insist they want him on Swedish soil “to answer the questions”.
His country, Australia, is in hot competition with Britain to qualify as the 51st American state but neither country can lawfully render him to the United States on charges of political “crimes”. To the Swedish authorities, law counts for nothing in the face of American demands. Their refusal to assure the Ecuadoreans that they would not render him to America confirms this.
One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to join the dots.
One has to wonder about the backgrounds of the two women making the charges. Any recent large deposits in their checking accounts? Any big purchases on their credit cards? Maybe a book deal in the offing? Any interesting stamps on their passports? Just wondering.
Behind your irreverent settler humour there is a serious point to this.
The English queen is head of state for the UK. Whenever state media (BBC etc) or general mainstream media mention her, they almost only ever do with subservient sycophantic unction. Comment over how she completely side-steps discussion of her combined roles of head of state, head of the official religion and head of the armed forces is as rare as hen’s teeth.
The juxtaposition of David bin Khameron alongside irate embassy-bashing Iranians has further merit: Iran’s head of state, head of her official religion and head of her armed forces is also one and the same person. (The only other country to share this accolade is North Korea.)
The English queen is the ultimate legal power but avoids overt political posturing to avoid a possible constitutional crisis. It is, however, inexcusable that she can sit by and watch you Yanks continue to slice up the world in an Ayn Rand fashion just as you have done since 1945. What could she be afraid of? That her grand-children are no longer hero-worshipped as they prance around North America? That you might accidentally drop a bunker buster down a Buck House chimney stack? That you won’t toss us a portion of Iraqi oil fields?
If there is any argument for a stronger EU then it must surely be to fend off the angel death known as the USA.
Prison?! He hasn't even been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one.
They say he's wanted for questioning, but have rejected all offers to question him in the UK. What a bunch of B.S.
It took a lot of guts for Ecuador to grant him asylum.
He's already jumped bail once.
The right to free speech is Universal whether we like is or not. This sham is a way to silence Assange. Given the anti-woman timber in the US, the alleged crimes don't get much sympathy from certainly the Congress.
The storming of Embassies would reduce the idea of diplomatic missions to dust. Many international train wrecks have been avoided by the existence of Embassies and the history of how effective the system has been should override the "need" to turn it all on its head.
The US has seen what happens when the rule of law fails and their Embassies have been attacked. The UK has a worse reputation historically in South America than Spain has. Woe betide the arrogance of the Eurocentric powers should they unleash this devil.
There is no choice now.
Britain and the US are going to have to attack and bomb that subversive bastion of freedom and democracy Ecuador into submission before everything falls apart.
We can't let these pipsqueak countries around the world taking human rights literally now, can we? Or everybody will want them and things will get completely out of control.
Sheesh. The world's going to hell, I tell you...
Where are Blair and Bush and Cheney - and Wolfowitz and PNAC - when we need them most?
Oh. I forgot. They're still in charge of the White House and US Foreign Policy. Whew. Everything should be fine then....
That does not excuse what GM did in shadowing him. Nor does it alter that the fact that all American car manufacturers paid little attention to quality, durability, and safety for decades.
The Corvair was a brilliant design, poorly executed. I owned, drove and raced several of them with great success during the 60's and 70's, so I am speaking from certain knowledge.
Assange is effectively imprisoned. His crime is exposing government communications that the public would never have seen otherwise. The Bush administration decided to make many routine government memos and emails "Top Secret." They were not shy about deceiving the American people.
To imagine that Assange is simply avoiding a rape prosecution is to miss the point about what he has really done. He has exposed a trap waiting for those who would speak truth to power.
Rape is a serious matter. These trumped up charges do NOT qualify as "rape" by any but the most perverse definition.
THANKS Ecuador.
Ah yes, the "network"! renditions, duplicity, action of PayPay. All part and parcel of the "network". The genie cannot be put back in the bottle no matter what.
THANKS TOO Ecuador.
- until the praetorians tire of their emperor and kill him... Roman History 101
If the Swedish authorities believe he committed raped, why haven't they charged him with rape? They claim they only want to question him but continually decline the opportunity to question him in England.
Why are you having such a difficult time seeing through this farce about a rape that Assange has not even been charged with?
All I can see about your comments is that you are intent upon assisting the US, UK, and Sweden's red herring by continuing to assert that all of us commenting here are not concerned about rape. We are all very concerned about actual rapes.
Aren't there any competent trolls whoever sent you could have deployed, or are you the best they could come up with?
From what I know of this case, the woman/women who made this complaint came forth well after the alleged incident took place. It is a ruse to be able to charge him on the wikileaks nonsense. Smoke and mirrors, nothing more.
The British and US Governments are far better at these things.
:-/
Think about this cynical statement from the UK regime --
"The UK Foreign Office issued a statement on Wednesday saying that it had "a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences and we are remain determined to fulfil this obligation."
Legal obligation to whom? Certainly not to international law. the obligation is rather to the US regime and its criminals who don't like being outed.
Some years ago, I predicted the Russians we becoming more like the Americans and they were becoming more like the Russians and they would someday meet in the middle. Obviously, I was wrong. They have passed each other going in opposite directions. "Land of the free" my eyes!
So far Joe, I have not witnessed any concern from you for the rule of law which clearly states that this rape thing is an allegation only, has not been proven in a court room.
The accused is innocent before the court or perhaps you have forgotten that part and would like to roast Assange on a spit forthwith without a trial at all.
It seems you have already convicted a (so far) innocent person. An accused does not have to clear anything up as the burden proof lies with the accusers.
As far as the rest of the world can see Assange has not been formally charged with anything. Please explain why that is. Perhaps because of a lack of evidence?
RSS feed for comments to this post