BS: Ecuador

Subject: BS: Ecuador
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 02:46 PM

Three cheers for Ecuador, giving political asylum to Julian Assange, William Hague is furious, the moron has been threatening to ignore all diplomatic conventions and just send the police in to arrest him.

The Ecuadorian Embassy counts as a sovreign state, what would be the world wide repercussions if all countries thought like Hague ?

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: gnu
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 03:31 PM

Depends. Did he compromise the security of the state or it's citizens by an illegal action? Did he rape two women in Sweden? Did he piss off people he shouldn't have pissed off?

More importantly, why has he been given political assylum by Equador?

It all seems murky to me. Not the least of which is why we are in an illegal war in Afghanistan.

Disclaimer : I haven't the knowledge of the situation to comment so the above should be taken at less than face value.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 03:31 PM

The CIA was remiss in not subjecting this slimy character to rendition before he could find a way to avoid paying for his crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 04:20 PM

Have you ever been to Ecuador? It's a very nice place indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 04:25 PM

He should be extracted from that embassy and frog marched on to a plane bound for Sweden to face the charges against him.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 04:45 PM

The threat by the UK to exercise alleged legal rights to enter the embassy could create many risks for UK embassies on the world stage.

Interesting question how to get Assange to Ecuador however. I suggest

1. Expedited Ecuador nationality
2. Appointment as member of ambassadorial staff
3. Bingo - full diplomatic immunity!

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 04:48 PM

Maybe Sweden could give a legally enforceable guarantee not to extradite to the USA - or the USA could give a legally enforceable guarantee not to seek extradition.

We know that fair treatment for Assange in the USA will not happen. Look at the poor bastard who handed over all that US stuff.

Fair trial on the sex charges in Sweden seems unlikely too - and AFAIK what Assange is alleged to have done in Sweden is not an offence in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: gnu
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 04:53 PM

I thought the Swedes were sexually liberated? What could he have done "rape"-wise that would be illegal in Sweden and legal in the UK?

Yes, I suppose I could research that but, in the end, I can't be arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 04:57 PM

Very strange! The guy pisses off various powerful people, and next thing you know - very late in the day - rape/assault charges appear from somewhere.
I hope Britain - or more to the point its immoral politician - come out of this with lots of egg - and other stuff - on their faces
The way it's going, Britain is going to piss off the whole of South America.
What will that do for our foreign trade connections!

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 05:05 PM

It's of no consequence to me, I don't need to go to South America any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: bobad
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 05:12 PM

From what I hear he has not been charged with anything anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 05:28 PM

very strange case..... *I* have no idea if he might be guilty of anything beyond publishing embarrassing secrets. I have seen very little about the supposed sexual assaults.

   IF he is being chased because of the 'secrets' thing, I fail to see how punishing him will solve much.

I guess I'll just let this play out among the diplomats.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: gnu
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 08:17 PM

"Britain is going to piss off the whole of South America"

Britain didn't do anything to that effect, did they? I thought it was the Equadorian lads who were stirring the pot. Not that I have a clue about any of it, mind you.

Just seems last time anyone in SA got pissy they had their asses handed to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 08:31 PM

With Tunesmith, I too find the charges against Julian Assange a bit too convenient. He royally pissed off the US intelligence services. Had the accusations against him as a traitor been as dire as the US said at the time, the USA would have collapsed by now--or something like that. The intelligence services of both Sweden and the USA have always had a fairly close relationship--but I mis-speak. Sweden, according to the CIA has no intelligence service(s):

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-s/sweden.html

Oh, well, back to the drawing board. Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 08:32 PM

That guest was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: bobad
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 09:21 PM

From Wikileaks via Twitter:

"Julian Assange HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED. Media reporting that he has do so falsely and risk libel suits. http://t.co/h3B82ugs

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Aug 12 - 09:27 PM

"Julian Assange HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED."

I know that, bobad. His incarceration is a CIA-led general disinformation pile of crap. My reference to 'charge' was in the sense of accused, not meaning he has a warrant out for him--well, maybe the 'black ops' crew, but certainly not any lawful warrant.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Musket
Date: 17 Aug 12 - 04:43 AM

Sorry Bridge, but I thought rape was an offence in The UK. Sex where consent was not there is rape. it may not pass the test of Ken Clarke and yourself, but luckily, it does pass the test of CPS asking a court to consider it if it were alleged to have happened here.

Hence the UK courts allowing Swedish extradition.

The stance of Ecuador is confusing. On one level, they rightly see the politics of Wikileaks and ask about political motivation to harass the man. But on another level, a European democratic country with no history or persuasion to oppress have two citizens complaining they were raped. In Sweden, in The UK and I would hope in Ecuador too, that is enough to be able to question the alleged person.

Nobody has charged him, and in Sweden, charging takes place a lot further down the line as per their laws.

He is however already guilty of a UK offence, that of breaking his bail conditions.

Those who defend him are, I fear, rightly defending Wikileaks, and I applaud some of their work. I wouldn't however presume to elevate hero worship to the level of saying he is not required to clear up allegations of such a serious crime as rape?

Think about it. It isn't about making William Hague look bad and the silly point scoring of seeing The Foreign Secretary squirm. If you want squirmish comedy, I recommend the latest Alan Partridge series. This is about serious allegations that he needs to help either clear up or face any charges that ensue. Claiming politics and threat of USA state murder doesn't hold any water once you remove the fluff and bollocks from this story. Sweden, like The UK doesn't extradite to countries where they face state murder if sent.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: bobad
Date: 17 Aug 12 - 08:29 AM

Here is a fairly comprehensive Investigative Report on the details surrounding the affair in Sweden and the fears Assange has of being railroaded by US justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Aug 12 - 10:09 AM

There are four allegations, Mither:

"that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body"

The only one that is rape as English law understands it is count 3 - the complainant was asleep so could not consent. By her own account after waking she did not seek to negate consent.

Count 2: as far as I know conditional consent has no place in the English law of rape. It's a bit like "Oh I'll have sex with you if you are a millionaire".

Count 4 - I understand that both were naked at the time. I may be misinformed but it would seem a material consideration.

Count 1: do me a favour!


It is common ground that there had been consensual sex with both complainants. That does not of course prove that there was consent on the relevant occasions but it may be relevant to the probability of whether there was or was not consent on the relevant occasions.


The fact that one prosecutor decided not to proceed with the investigations and then after the great Wikileak the head prosecutrix decided to re-activate the investigations is most suspicious.


That said, I am not clear about the relative ease of extradition from, on the one hand, Sweden but, on the other hand, England to the US.   I believe Sweden has not refused any extradition request from the USA since the year 2000. As far as I know England never has but I may be wrong. The UK/US extradition treaty is a disgrace, as teh recent past clearly demonstrates, but I am told that there is an even worse feature of the Sweden/US treaty - one of "conditional extradition" - an expedited procedure easier for the US to pursue if it promises to return the alleged criminal after sentence served.

I am in no doubt at all that Assange will not get a fair trial in the USA, and he risks the death penalty and/or life imprisonment (even perhaps interminable imprisonment without trial) for alleged crimes that the rest of the world can readily see are paranoid delusions and fantasies on the part of grandstanding US politicians. Reminder to the USA - the rest of the world is not another state of yours to control as you see fit.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: meself
Date: 17 Aug 12 - 10:26 AM

The issue which does not seem to be getting much attention, and which the OP tried to raise, I think, is that of the ramifications of UK forces storming the Ecuadorian embassy. The US didn't like it much when the Iranians stormed their embassy in Tehran, and I don't think we would like the Chinese to barge into embassies every time a defector takes refuge in one. It would set a disquieting precedent, would it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Musket
Date: 17 Aug 12 - 11:37 AM

Fully agree that the ramifications of storming an embassy make the letter from the FO to Ecuador ill advised. The incompetence was either naive or designed to urge Ecuador to make a decision that lessens their credibility on the world stage. it was either very clever or very stupid. In any event, he doesn't have diplomatic status as an asylum candidate and unless anyone forgot, he either lives out his life in a building in London or he has to leave it to get away from british soil. Interesting game of chess by anyone's standard.

That said, Bridge's suspicion that the allegation of rape coincided with the Wikileaks bit can be seen as suspicious, but irrelevant. The complainants of the alleged rape are still complaining and unprotected sex where only protected sex was consented to is, however you want to put it, sex without consent, or rape as we non legal bods would call it. If he is innocent, then all he has to do is cooperate. All this about Sweden could send him to USA has to be balanced against all the time he was on UK soil and I don't recall USA asking us to extradite him?

it could well be that it was consented, but unless and until the relevant law agencies are allowed to carry out their lawful investigations, the involved parties cannot put this behind them.

This is not about exposing government collusion and crime by releasing documents that embarrass them, although exposing allied forces to danger is something Wikileaks don't seem to worry about, it isn't even about suspending The Geneva Convention; it is about two women alleging non consenting sex. It can't be outside of reason to have that cleared up without him bleating about a death sentence? I can understand why he doesn't want to go to The USA, but if he isn't a rapist, why isn't he trying to clear his name? At present he is, by any title, an alleged rapist and nobody wants that to be hanging over them, unless they fear having the word "alleged" removed?

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Aug 12 - 04:48 PM

Who cares. I haven't heard a single thing that indicates that the US wants him.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: bobad
Date: 17 Aug 12 - 05:18 PM

US in pursuit of Assange, cables reveal

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Aug 12 - 06:26 PM

I thought I'd said (a) storming the Ecuadorian embassy would set a very dangerous precedent for UK embassies worldwise; and
(b) Conditional consent to sex is I think (not certain, I think) unknown to English law.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: michaelr
Date: 18 Aug 12 - 04:21 PM

"If he is innocent, then all he has to do is cooperate."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Allan Conn
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 03:33 AM

"All this about Sweden could send him to USA has to be balanced against all the time he was on UK soil and I don't recall USA asking us to extradite him?"

It is all a bit confusing. The supporters of Assange use the argument that he would/could be extradited on from Sweden to the US and possibly face the death penalty. But I too can't understand why Sweden would be deemed a softer touch for the Americans than the UK would be. Hasn't Sweden got just as independent a legal system as the UK has? I'd have thought the Swedes wouldn't extradite someone unless given assurances re the death penalty. The extradition agreement between the EU states and the US makes it clear that unless the US officially agrees to not carry out the death penalty then EU members can refuse extradition!

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 03:51 AM

Michaelr.

Not sure allegations of rape are a laughing matter.

Bridge. Conditional sex has conditions. Violate those conditions and I am not sure a jury would be too impressed. I believe the precedent goes along the lines of "If a woman says no she means maybe. "

Nice to see Ecuador back pedalling and stating he needs to answer to the allegations.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 06:32 AM

Although H. Clinton proclaimed Assange guilty of "Treason" for which the Death Penalty exists in the US. My guess is the *real* fear (and the more likely outcome) so far as the Assange camp is concerned, is Gitmo where the US send people to be tortured and where Bradley Manning has been illegally held for the past two years. Assange would end up buried there forever.

No doubt the self-proclaimed freedom of speech loving H. Clinton (who coincidentally visited Sweden for the first time ever a few days after Britain upheld Sweden's extradition request for Assange) would see to it personally in return for publicly revealing her secretly ordered programme of espionage conducted against the UN, which - unlike whistle-blowing - is actually illegal under intonational treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 10:29 AM

Bradley Manning, a member of the US Army, has been legally held in military confinement facilities in Virginia and Kansas since his arrest. He has never been in Cuba. The most likely outcome of his upcoming trial is a 'diminished mental capacity' verdict.

The US has not executed anyone for treason or espionage in over three generations - nearly 70 years. The last ones were the Rosenbergs in 1953. Mr. Asinage is hardly important enough to overcome that precedent. Regardless of what Ms. Clinton may or may not have said, he is not subject to a treason charge, since he is not a US citizen or legal resident. Espionage is certainly a possibility, and what he and his organization allegedly did meets the legal definition of espionage, but (political rhetoric aside) why would he be worth the effort? Let the Swedes try him on sex crimes, if there is enough evidence to justify it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 10:38 AM

I agree, Art. CS, you've been reading the yellow rags instead of responsible journalism.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Stu
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 10:48 AM

"The US has not executed anyone for treason or espionage in over three generations - nearly 70 years."

Forgive the rest of the world if we don't believe there is some moral code at work when it comes to state murder; they've knowingly killed children, people whose guilt was doubtful and mentally ill people.

Assange is correct in worrying for his safety.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Stu
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 11:18 AM

Of course, Ecuador itself is hardly a paragon of virtue, as they piss from a great height on the rights of indigenous people, but then show a country that doesn't, even when they know it's wrong.

Also, Sweden is right up the arse of the US government (they allowed rendition flights through) so he's right to be wary.

However, he needs to stand trial for the rape charges, regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: number 6
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 11:50 AM

"Then they came for me,and by that time no one was left to speak
up" .... rev. Martin Niemoller


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 03:32 PM

Musket - I wasn't laughing at the rape allegations, but at the assertion that an innocent man has nothing to worry about re: prosecution/persecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 04:39 PM

I have been thinking about this quite a lot over the last few days and indeed had some exchanges with a former Swedish judge, and two things are very puzzling.

What, realistically, is the difference between the likelihood of extradition from Sweden to the US or the UK to the US. We know the UK treaty is very pro-US. My gut feeling was originally that Assange might well be safer in Sweden.

Second - if the CIA was going to fit Assange up, you'd have thought they could have come up with something less iffy and debatable. This almost convinces me that the Swedish allegations are unlikely to be a US fit-up.

Spinning off from that I thought Assange's speech this afternoon was well assembled. I subscribe to the view that the US's treatment of Bradley Manning is vengeful and torturous. But it was a condition of his asylum that he make no political utterance. The speech looked political to me. And I gather that there is a dialogue going on between Ecuador and Sweden. I wonder what the next move will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 04:53 PM

Interesting ride from Quito to Cuenco in Ecuador.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 06:51 PM

Julian Assange did not rape anyone. That charge was dropped. As to the other charges, they should also be dropped. He's been set up. COINTELPRO is alive and well and if they send him to Sweden the FBI will have him, and another Leonard Peltier will be shut away for ever!

Ecuador by the way, was one of the countries Julian named when he exposed the USA for what they were doing to Indigenous People backalong, so I can fully understand why Ecuador has now granted him Asylum.

Here's the very interesting and informative article about the Wikileaks exposure on U.S. treatment of Indigenous People across the world...

Brenda Norrell (Censored News) - Wikileaks reveals U.S. Espionage on Indigenous Peoples

Just in case people can't open the link, here is the article:

Best of the Best 2011 #1 Wikileaks revelations
By Brenda Norrell
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com

"In the Censored News pick for the Best of the Best in 2011, Wikileaks claims first prize. Wikileaks exposed the US corporate schemes, espionage, promotion of mining and efforts globally to halt passage of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Wikileaks revealed extensive espionage of Indigenous Peoples, including the Mapuche and Mohawks, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales, who ushered in a new Indigenous global rights campaign.

The release of the US diplomatic cables of the US State Department confirmed that the US feared the power of Indigenous Peoples, specifically their claims to their traditional territories, a right stated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Further, the Declaration states the right of free, prior and informed consent before development proceeds and protects intellectual and cultural property rights.

Here's the top six ways that the United States and Canada, as revealed by Wikileaks, worked against the rights of Indigenous Peoples, by engaging in espionage and the promotion of mining, while violating Indigenous autonomy, self determination and dignity.
1. The United States worked behind the scenes to fight the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In Ecuador, the US established a program to dissuade Ecuador from supporting the Declaration. In Iceland, the US Embassy said Iceland's support was an "impediment" to US/Iceland relations at the UN. In Canada, the US said the US and Canada agreed the Declaration was headed for a "train wreck."

2. The United States targeted and tracked Indigenous Peoples, community activists and leaders, especially in Chile, Peru and Ecuador. A cable reveals the US Embassy in Lima, Peru, identified Indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Mapuche and Quechua activists and community leaders. President Chavez and President Morales were consistently watched, and their actions analyzed. Indigenous activists opposing the dirty Tar Sands were spied on, and other Indigenous activists in Vancouver, prior to the Olympics.

3. The United States was part of a five country coalition to promote mining and fight against Indigenous activists in Peru. A core group of diplomats from U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Switzerland and South Africa formed an alliance with mining companies to promote and protect mining interests globally. In other illegal corporate profiteering, Peru's government secretly admitted that 70-90 percent of its mahogany exports were illegally felled, according to a US embassy cable revealed by Wikileaks. Lowe's and Home Depot sell the lumber.

4. Canada spied on Mohawks using illegal wiretaps. Before Wikileaks hit the headlines, it exposed in 2010 that Canada used unauthorized wiretaps on Mohawks.
Wikileaks: "During the preliminary inquiry to Shawn Brant's trial, it came out that the Ontario Provincial Police, headed by Commissioner Julian Fantino, had been using wiretaps on more than a dozen different Mohawks without a judge's authorization, an action almost unheard of recent history in Canada."

4. The United States and Canada tracked Mohawks. In one of the largest collections of cables released so far that targeted Native people and named names, the US Embassies in Montreal and Toronto detailed Mohawk activities at the border and in their communities.

5. The arrogant and insulting tone of the US Embassies and disrespect for Indigenous leaders is pervasive in US diplomatic cables. The US Embassy in Guatemala stated that President of Guatemala, Álvaro Colom, called Rigoberta Menchu a "fabrication" of an anthropologist and made other accusations. Menchu responded on a local radio station that Colom was a "liar."

6. The collection of DNA and other data, makes it clear that US Ambassadors are spies abroad. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton states that the Intelligence Community relies on biographical information from US diplomats. In cables to Africa and Paraguay, Clinton asked US Embassy personnel to collect address books, e-mail passwords, fingerprints, iris scans and DNA.

"The intelligence community relies on State reporting officers for much of the biographical information collected worldwide," Clinton said in a cable on April 16, 2009. Clinton said the biographical data should be sent to the INR (Bureau of Intelligence and Research) for dissemination to the Intelligence Community.

Meanwhile, the US was part of a five country team that supported mining as Indigenous Peoples were dying to protect their homeland.
The arrogance of the US and its cheerleading for corporate copper mining in Peru is obvious in two cables just released from Wikileaks. The diplomatic cables reveal the US promoting multi-national corporations, while targeting Indigenous activists and their supporters.

The cables reveal that a core group of diplomats formed an alliance with mining companies to promote and protect mining interests globally. The diplomats were from the U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Switzerland and South Africa.

Read more at http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2011/02/wikileaks-peru-us-ambassador-targeted.html

The US spied on the Mohawks in Canada, as revealed in these diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks. Canadian border guards admitted that they feared the Mohawks:

http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikileaks-cables-on-mohawks.html

Wikileaks exposed the fact that not only were Indigenous Peoples spied on globally by the US State Department, but those who supported them were also spied on. Actor and activist Danny Glover was the focus of at least five US diplomatic cables."

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 06:57 PM

I've put this info on the Support Chief Raoni page and elsewhere and would ask *everyone* to share it out because this is SERIOUS SHIT!!

The Mapuche have recently been under savagae attacks from police in Chile...and Indigenous People *everywhere* are under threat, en masse, as The Corporate Bastards move in on their land in the most shocking global way...helped by the fecking Caterpillar Co. who are tearing Mother Earth apart!


And to all those who see Julian Assange as a 'threat', OPEN YOUR MINDS AND SEE THAT IN ACTUAL FACT HE'S A BLOODY **HERO** WHO IS POSSIBLY ABOUT TO BE EATEN BY THE BASTARD SHARKS NOW RUNNING **YOUR** WORLD!!

So do ALL you can to help him!

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Beer
Date: 19 Aug 12 - 11:46 PM

The most important issue here is the rape charge. Send him back to Sweden and when this issue is solved. Take the next step. Like sending him off too wherever. The wherever is not the important part. It is the rape charge.
ad.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 04:13 AM

Indigenous folks forced to stay outside Bank in Ecuador.

Apparently these folks were required to stand outside the bank in Baños Ecuador, in order to transact business!

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 05:24 AM

Beer, the rape charge was dropped. There is NO charge of rape against him.

The two women concerned, who seem to have had 'one night stands' with him, are saying he refused to use contraception when they asked. But it seems they still went ahead.

So, 2 women, on 2 consecutive days had sex with this man, then they spoke to 'someone else' who told them they should go to the police...

Hmmm..so...2 women both happen to talk about their 'night with Julian' to the same person, and/or to each other. Both didn't mind one bit about going off with him in the first place it would seem, and as the rape charge has been removed,it would also perhaps seem that they COULD have just walked away, as in got up, left the room and gone out of his life....

But they stayed, both women, went ahead and had sex with him, then decided after talking to 'a friend' that they should press charges against him in a tawdry, sordid manner, over a matter which should have stayed private amongst all three of them....

Also, if he HAD done this, then WHY did he apply to LIVE in Sweden?? Surely he'd have hotailed it out of the country to avoid being arrested? But no, he applied to live there. The application was turned down, probably because he was Julian Assange and nothing to do with these 2 women...

'They' are out to get him..and they will stop at NOTHING to do so, for he is spilling the beans about The Bastards who are ruling our world at present...

Good on him, I say! The sooner they're all brought down, the better...

BBC Timeline of sexual charges against Julian Assange

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 05:36 AM

I think you are probably right in the main, Lizzie ~~ but then why do the Swedes still want him back?

I ask purely to be informed. I have no opinions on the rights & wrongs of the various aspects of the matter, which appears to have attained an incomprehensible and unfathomable complexity.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 08:09 AM

Well, it appears that in Sweden the militant feminists really have the government by the balls!
Sometimes it seems as if you only have to look at a woman the wrong way, to find an assault charge coming your way.

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 09:10 AM

I am by no means clear that the "rape charge" was dropped. Apart from anything else, there are no charges. Read my lips. There are no charges. There are merely allegations to be investigated. The difference is fundamental under Swedish law. I thought all allegations had been picked up and were being pursued by the second investigator.

Additionally, being in the same bed with someone, even naked in the same bed with someone, is not, legally speaking, consent to sex (at least in England) - and for absolutely sure, being asleep is not an effective consent to sex. So, (unless, possibly, the woman in question had said "I'm going to sleep now, you can fuck me in the night if you want to but don't wake me up" (or something similar) there is no vestige of an argument that that was not rape (if the sex happened and the woman was asleep).

I do not trust the US in this, but it is not easy to get a handle on - and why would they not fit him up with something better, something more foolproof? Why would they not seek his extradition from the UK under the irrational one-sided and US-biassed extradition treaty between us?

"Between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2011, the US made 134 requests for extradition to the UK authorities and 75 people were successfully sent to America for trial" - from here: http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-q-and-a-is-the-us-uk-extradition-treaty-unfair/9912

Some interesting stuff here - http://internationalextraditionblog.com/2010/12/08/julian-assange-sweden-and-u-s-extradition-treaty/ -

including the conditional extradition process




I have been unable to trace statistics on how often Sweden has refused US extradition requests. It is stated that they have refused none since 2000 but I do not know how many were made. There is however a very critical review of Sweden's record on extradition here http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/swe-extradition-hist.html

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 11:33 AM

Let's create a scenario.
Boy and girl friend end up in bed together and have sex, and then fall asleep.
Next morning, she wakes up first and sees that he has an erection, and decided to wake him up by giving him a blow job.
Now, as he never gave her consent to do such a thing, could her actions be called a sexual assault?

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 11:40 AM

The KLM flight from Amsterdam to Quito used to stop at the Caribbean island of Bonaire, but now flies direct - great shame, it was great to break up the journey home to spend 3 or 4 days in the Caribbean sun!

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Allan Conn
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 12:19 PM

"Now, as he never gave her consent to do such a thing, could her actions be called a sexual assault?"

Bit isn't it supposed to be more like a man and woman are about to have sex when she realises that he has no condoms so she decides she does not want to have unprotected sex - when he then forces himself on her anwyway without the consent? Whether she was awake or asleep the fact remains that if it was without her consent then yes it would be rape. Remembering of course that it is only an allegation. He has not as yet been found guilty of anything.

As to the other way around there are occasions when females are accused of sexual assault against males - even though it is likely to be treated as a bit of a joke in the media. Does anyone remember the American Joyce McKinney (spelling?) who fled Britain after allegedly tieing up a young mormon and giving him oral sex against his will?

There is of course a bit of a diffrence between the scenarios. If a man is given oral sex in his sleep against his will it would maybe be an infringement but it would be unlikely to have a major impact on his health or body - whereas if a woman is penetrated against her will with no protection the there are far more possible negative implications!

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 04:35 PM

But what if a man gave oral sex to a sleeping woman without her permission?
Could she claim sexual assault? You bet!
And, particularly in Sweden!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Ecuador
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Aug 12 - 04:49 PM

The first explanation of the Swedish allegations which I saw did not claim that Assange had refused to use a condom.

It was alleged that, in each case, during consensual sex the condom had split and he failed to withdraw, which is, or may be in Sweden, a technical rape. It would, I believe, not be so considered in the UK.

The story has since changed so much that it must be considered suspect in the extreme.

Before acceding to any extradition request, our courts should IMHO require prima facie evidence of a case to answer.

This does not happen in extraditions to the USA, nor has it been done in the case of the Swedish request.

I hope he is granted Ecuadorean citizenship and employed by the embassy, so that he can claim diplomatic status and leave for foreign parts with no danger af arrest.

Don T.