Assange: Refugee or Fugitive?

[Aractus]

On 19 July 2012, Assange walked in to the London Ecuadorian embassy, applied from asylum and was (eventually) granted the legal status as a political refugee. Since that time he has not left the confines of the embassy for fear of being arrested and extradited to Sweden.

The UK has the embassy guarded day and night, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at a reported cost of £11,000-12,000 a day! If that cost is correct then it has cost the British taxpayer over £2,000,000! If I was a Pom I'd be totally outraged by this. Why is the UK being so heavy handed over this matter? Assange is now, legally, a refugee. He has not been convicted of anything in Sweden, and the charges he is on there are totally frivolous in any case (apparently Sweden has the view that every time a man and woman have consensual sex there is cause for action?)

Why waste time and money guarding the place, when we know he's not going to come out while the police are there? He is not a criminal in the UK, why waste so much resources on something Sweden wants to pursue? The UK should now have to recognize his status as a refugee: he isn't convicted of anything in Sweden so Sweden can't claim that he's a criminal. So the UK knows that Ecuador has granted him political asylum, and no country is telling the UK he's a convicted criminal, the UK should therefore adopt the default position afforded to them by Ecuador - asylum.

As I understand it, he isn't even on criminal charges in Sweden - only civil charges. All the more reason why the UK being so heavy handed over a non-criminal extradition matter is all the more disturbing.

It could end up costing the UK government a lot more money yet, if Assange successfully sues them for persecution as a refugee.

[Minimalist]

At some level I have to think that we are pressuring the Brits to this absurd position because Assange leaked all that classified material given to him by Bradley Manning.

But I tend to be a cynical bastard.

[Something completely different]

Why waste time an money? Because every individual is equal and therefor has the same responsibility when facing the law of the land.

A narcecist, creepy fucktard like Assange is no exception. As far as I know Daniel, every police operation nessecery during a public protest involving 2000 people costs the taxpayer 600 000 Euros in Germany, the average murder case in the US costs the taxpayer between 600 000 and 1 500 000 dollars. Sooooo the money isn`t that much of a question if you ask me. Sure it sounds outrageous to some to think that 2 000 000 pounds sterling should be spent on survailing one embessy, but on the other hand - you will almoust certainly find cases in which the taxpayer has to spend more money to ensure a functioning juristiction.

The only thing that can be debated are swedens strickt laws on sexual offence.
-
Having sex with a woman without a condom - and shortly after having sex without a condom with another woman.
-
Which is considered to be a sexual offence in swedish law. And yes these laws have been in place before Assange was persecuted by the swedish state prosecuter!

So far, Assange has only used his impending extradition to theatricaly show himself as a victim of some crazed conspiracy, to create a image of a martyr.
Fact is, Sweden does not extradite offenders who might face the death penalty in the US. Therefor his brainfart of him defenatly being extradited to the US is bullshit.

By the way, I was very interested in the leaks and read them, Some of it I thought - that the public had every legitemate right to know - some of it not.
But I believe that Assange is a narcecist asshole.

[Aractus]

Germans why don't you think before you post bullshit?

Assange is only wanted for relatively minor charges in Sweden. Extraditing someone on such minor charges in the first place is pathetic and a waste of the courts time in the UK. The remainder of the BS is a further waste of the UK's resources.

Oh and there are clear examples of Sweden doing what the USA wants in other cases.

[Something completely different]

Sexual offences might be considerd a "minor crime" in some places - but not in Europe. It would be outright shamefull If the UK would not extradite him.

And please show me these "clear examples" of how Sweden is doing what the Us wants?

[Aractus]

I disagree with just about every single thing you said Germans.

Sexual offences might be considerd a "minor crime" in some places - but not in Europe. It would be outright shamefull If the UK would not extradite him.

The sexual offence you're talking about, to be clear, is two adults having consensual sex without a condom, correct?

A narcecist, creepy fucktard like Assange is no exception. As far as I know Daniel, every police operation nessecery during a public protest involving 2000 people costs the taxpayer 600 000 Euros in Germany, the average murder case in the US costs the taxpayer between 600 000 and 1 500 000 dollars. Sooooo the money isn`t that much of a question if you ask me. Sure it sounds outrageous to some to think that 2 000 000 pounds sterling should be spent on survailing one embessy, but on the other hand - you will almoust certainly find cases in which the taxpayer has to spend more money to ensure a functioning juristiction.

Legally Germans, speaking legally, he is a refugee. The UK has signed the conventions relating to the protections afforded to refugees. Arresting a refugee is a scandalous offence. Assange can petition the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to force the UK to let him leave.

The only thing that can be debated are swedens strickt laws on sexual offence.

According to who Germans? You?

So far, Assange has only used his impending extradition to theatricaly show himself as a victim of some crazed conspiracy, to create a image of a martyr.

First there's the USA's espionage investigation against WikiLeaks which they've attempted to conduct in "secret", but we all know about. In June Bob Carr told the public that he has absolutely no information that would suggest that Assange is being pursued for extradition by the USA. Then in August a freedom of information request generated the proof that the investigation into possible criminal conduct by the USA has been ongoing for more than a year, and that Australian diplomats had specifically asked the USA for advance warning of moves to extradite Assange (yes, even though he was and still is in the UK).

By the way, I was very interested in the leaks and read them, Some of it I thought - that the public had every legitemate right to know - some of it not.

Really? So what did the public not have a right to know?

[Something completely different]

The sexual offence you're talking about, to be clear, is two adults having consensual sex without a condom, correct?

No we are talking about him having sex with a woman - refusing to use a condom.

To then later have sex with another woman - not using a condom.

Which in swedish law - is seen as a sexual offence.

Sounds weird - but it is the law.

A narcecist, creepy fucktard like Assange is no exception. As far as I know Daniel, every police operation nessecery during a public protest involving 2000 people costs the taxpayer 600 000 Euros in Germany, the average murder case in the US costs the taxpayer between 600 000 and 1 500 000 dollars. Sooooo the money isn`t that much of a question if you ask me. Sure it sounds outrageous to some to think that 2 000 000 pounds sterling should be spent on survailing one embessy, but on the other hand - you will almoust certainly find cases in which the taxpayer has to spend more money to ensure a functioning juristiction.

Legally Germans, speaking legally, he is a refugee. The UK has signed the conventions relating to the protections afforded to refugees. Arresting a refugee is a scandalous offence. Assange can petition the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to force the UK to let him leave.

No. He is a refugee from your point of view.

A person fleeing from a warzone is a refugee.

A person fleeing from unlawfull persecution due to being a religious, ethnical, political or religious minority is a refugee - except when seen from the side of the prosecuter.

In order for him to be a refugee he would have to face unlawfull consequences and persecution when extradited. Which he doesnt.

Therefor the UN comissioner wont do jackshit.

Because BREAKING NEWS: Sweden is not some middle eastern dictatorship ruled by a cealot who pulls laws out of his ass.

According to who Germans? You?

No, because laws are here to be evaluated if they are effective and just or not.

So far, Assange has only used his impending extradition to theatricaly show himself as a victim of some crazed conspiracy, to create a image of a martyr.

First there's the USA's espionage investigation against WikiLeaks which they've attempted to conduct in "secret", but we all know about. In June Bob Carr told the public that he has absolutely no information that would suggest that Assange is being pursued for extradition by the USA. Then in August a freedom of information request generated the proof that the investigation into possible criminal conduct by the USA has been ongoing for more than a year, and that Australian diplomats had specifically asked the USA for advance warning of moves to extradite Assange (yes, even though he was and still is in the UK).

How does this disclaim what I stated before????

It doesn`t change how he poses arround with Nasralah and several other undemocratic figures and runs his wikileaks organisation like a tyrant running a cult.

Only because the US want him, that doesn`t make him abetter person.
What kind of a twisted logic is that?

Really? So what did the public not have a right to know?

The medical files of several heads of state!!!!!

An journalists from the Guardian, Le Monde and der Spiegel had to threaten Assange with violence not to publish the names of agents in abroad missions - so there wouldnt be the risk of them getting killed.

[Aractus]

No we are talking about him having sex with a woman - refusing to use a condom.

To then later have sex with another woman - not using a condom.

Which in swedish law - is seen as a sexual offence.

Sounds weird - but it is the law.

I don't care whether it's the law or not, having consensual sex with another adult is not an offence in my view, or in just about anyone else's view.

No. He is a refugee from your point of view.

---

A person fleeing from a warzone is a refugee.

A person fleeing from unlawfull persecution due to being a religious, ethnical, political or religious minority is a refugee - except when seen from the side of the prosecuter.

In order for him to be a refugee he would have to face unlawfull consequences and persecution when extradited. Which he doesnt.

Therefor the UN comissioner wont do jackshit.

Because BREAKING NEWS: Sweden is not some middle eastern dictatorship ruled by a cealot who pulls laws out of his ass.

---

Um, no it's not according to me. It's according to Ecuador who has granted him asylum, and according to the conventions set out by the UN which the UK is signatory to - has nothing to do with me you fool.

It doesn`t change how he poses arround with Nasralah and several other undemocratic figures and runs his wikileaks organisation like a tyrant running a cult.

Only because the US want him, that doesn`t make him abetter person.
What kind of a twisted logic is that?

I don't care what kind of a person he is Germans, he's still allowed to conduct his business the way he wants without fear of persecution from the USA for espionage.

The medical files of several heads of state!!!!!

An journalists from the Guardian, Le Monde and der Spiegel had to threaten Assange with violence not to publish the names of agents in abroad missions - so there wouldnt be the risk of them getting killed.

Most journalists edit out the names of innocent parties, you're right, but the document itself is what we're concerned with. As for medical files - so what? Someone gave them to Wikileaks and they were published.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

My hangover is killing me and I can't think clear.
But still...

Will he have a fair trial, despite the outcome?

[Waratah]

Germans why don't you think before you post bullshit?

Assange is only wanted for relatively minor charges in Sweden. Extraditing someone on such minor charges in the first place is pathetic and a waste of the courts time in the UK. The remainder of the BS is a further waste of the UK's resources.

Oh and there are clear examples of Sweden doing what the USA wants in other cases.

I don't think the offences are minor Daniel. LINKY to the High Court decision with the listed offences

It set out four offences:
"1. Unlawful coercion
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2. Sexual molestation
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3. Sexual molestation
On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."
No other description of the conduct was given elsewhere in the EAW.

Daniel could you please show us the "clear examples of Sweden doing what the USA wants in other cases."