ASSANGE MOM ARRIVES IN ECUADOR TO PLEAD HER SON'S ASYLUM CASE

Countries with diplomatic relations but no extradition treaty

The United States maintains diplomatic relations, but does not have extradition treaties with the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), the Union of the Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, the Maldives, Mali, the Marshall Islands, Mauritania, the Federated States of Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé & Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

How interesting. I don't see Ecuador in the list, do you? Not surprising as they have a treaty:

signed June 28, 1872
came into force November 12, 1873
signed September 22, 1939
came into force May 29, 1941

So, why flee to Ecuador where he can be extradited under an existing treaty? Panic? If that treaty is still extant he is in as much danger with his latest escapade as he was being sent back to Sweden. Mind you, I think this extradition to the USA spiel is just a ruse to stop him being sent to Sweden where I think they may have a very good case against him. LL

Mind you, I think this extradition to the USA spiel is just a ruse to stop him being sent to Sweden where I think they may have a very good case against him. LL

......and he knows it, LL?

I really don't know, lily, but I do know Sweden has very strict laws regarding the use of condoms, if a woman asks a man to use one and he either refuses or later has sex with her while she is, for instance, asleep and does not use one then it is an offence; I understand one of the allegations is that he refused to use one, another is that one of the women woke up to find him on top of her. I don't know the actual ramifications; this I have gathered from a Swedish friend of many years. I believe, because of this, AIDS and HIV are still fairly low there though, because people travel far and wide these days, the levels are rising. LL

This is interesting, though it does say Source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/17/julian-assange-extradition-ecuador-embassy

Quote:

However, the source said that Quito had been encouraged by a phone call made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Ecuadorean ambassador on Thursday. "The FCO called the ambassador yesterday to confirm that it still had the will to talk and negotiate, so we'll keep talking," it added.

"The fact that they called the ambassador makes us think that the letter with the threat of using domestic legislation to make an incursion into the embassy and arrest somebody inside was a mistake – as was the intimidating increase in the number of police surrounding the embassy on the same day the letter was delivered."

It stressed that Ecuador was willing to co-operate with the British and Swedish authorities over the matter of Assange's extradition to Sweden. "In the negotiations with the FCO, Ecuador has been proposing that we would be prepared to accept an undertaking from the UK and Sweden that, once Julian Assange has faced the Swedish investigation, he will not be extradited to a third country: specifically the US. That might be a way out of it and Ecuador has always said it does not want to interfere with the Swedish judicial process; we could facilitate it."


Oh dear, I don't think their lodger is going to like that very much at all....

Oh dear me, no, he is not.

In my opinion, he knew he would not end up in the US if he faced charges in Sweden. What an attention seeking piece of merde he is.

I do hope the people who he stiffed when he broke bail are still happy with him.

LL, thank you for the info.

I think this letter regarding the Embassy that there is a such a fuss over was in fact an explanation of what possibilities were open to the British Government. I don't believe that storming the Embassy was ever mentioned, but I bet that little idea was implanted in the Ecuadoran minds by Assange. It sounds very like one of his stunts, doesn't it? LL

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh at him stiffing Tariq Ali, Jemima, and all the other luvvies, Lily. Tell you, he's like Bennett writ large.

Lamplighter wrote:I think this letter regarding the Embassy that there is a such a fuss over was in fact an explanation of what possibilities were open to the British Government. I don't believe that storming the Embassy was ever mentioned, but I bet that little idea was implanted in the Ecuadoran minds by Assange. It sounds very like one of his stunts, doesn't it? LL

That's his M.O. right there, LL. He has done it over and over and over again. Of course, some people have believed him. He has counted on it because he is such a clever and devious manipulator.

bb1 wrote:You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh at him stiffing Tariq Ali, Jemima, and all the other luvvies, Lily. Tell you, he's like Bennett writ large.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

As I was writing my earlier post I was thinking exactly the same as you regarding Bennett.

lily wrote:Oh dear me, no, he is not.

In my opinion, he knew he would not end up in the US if he faced charges in Sweden. What an attention seeking piece of merde he is.

I do hope the people who he stiffed when he broke bail are still happy with him.

LL, thank you for the info.

You're welcome, lily! Of course he knows it. He fed all this sh*t to his followers, got them to elaborate on every little titbit that came from his mouth or keyboard. A plain request that he return to Sweden to answer questions regarding certain allegations suddenly becomes a world-wide conspiracy to get him to the US. As Bradley Manning will not, it has been stated, face the death penalty as the person who actually stole the documents, there is no case for Assange to face it either. Also, his leaking of the documents did not take place in the US (I assume) but in the UK. Ergo, he should be tried in the UK not in the US. And his arrogant demand that the Swedish police should actually go to the UK to ask their questions or interview him by video link is beyond belief. Apparently he stated that they could come and interview him at the Embassy!! His followers are as gullible as bentits lot, quite beyond my understanding. But then I question most things, I do NOT take things for granted, I probe, I question and then I draw my own conclusions. LL

It does seem as if something is moving, diplomatically:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19298846

Julian Assange: UK wants 'amicable solution'


The UK says it wants an "amicable solution" to the diplomatic crisis over Wikileaks founder Julian Assange after Ecuador granted him political asylum.

It comes as its government said it had received a call from the UK Foreign Office saying temperatures on both sides needed to be cooled down.

The Foreign Office would not comment.

Mr Assange took refuge at Ecuador's embassy in London in June as he faced extradition to Sweden over sexual assault claims, which he denies.

Ecuador announced on Thursday it had granted Mr Assange asylum, saying that his human rights might be violated if he is sent to Sweden.

Extradition guarantees
The Foreign Office said it would not give a "running commentary" on what contacts had been made with the Ecuadoreans.

But a spokesman said: "We hope that we can reach an amicable solution to the situation."

An Ecuadorean government spokesman they received a phone call from the Americas desk at the Foreign Office with a message they believed to have come from Foreign Secretary William Hague.


The spokesman said that "as a result both sides will go back to near normal diplomatic conversations in seeking a solution to Mr Assange" and what would happen to him after completion of legal proceedings in Sweden.

The Ecuadoreans say they are looking for guarantees that after any trial in Sweden there would be no further extradition, and for safeguards over how Mr Assange would be held in Sweden would be met.

The UK and Sweden have criticised Ecuador for granting political asylum to Mr Assange.

The UK has said it will not allow him safe passage out of the country but Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said he hoped talks with the UK would "overcome this".

Legal obligations
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said his country would not be lectured by Ecuador.

Ecuador has said Mr Assange's human rights might be violated if he were sent to Sweden to be questioned over allegations that he sexually assaulted two female ex-Wikileaks volunteers while he was in Stockholm to give a lecture in 2010.

The Wikileaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several countries, particularly the US.

The 41-year-old Australian citizen, who claims the sexual contact was consensual, has said the allegations against him were politically motivated and he feared that, if extradited to Sweden, he would then be passed on to US authorities.

The Foreign Office has said it remained committed to reaching a "negotiated solution" but following its obligations under the Extradition Act, it would arrest Mr Assange if he left the embassy.

In a statement issued after the Ecuadorean decision to grant Mr Assange political asylum, Mr Hague said the UK was under a "binding obligation" to extradite him to Sweden.

In Sweden, foreign ministry spokesman Anders Joerle said it was "unacceptable that Ecuador would want to halt the Swedish judicial process".

Claes Brogstrom, the lawyer for the two Swedish women making the sexual assault complaints against Mr Assange, said their ordeal seemed to have been overlooked by Mr Assange's supporters.

---------------

Quite; they have been vilified in the most revolting manner by Assange's groupies, but they have every right to their day in court, too.

Especially as they have not wavered under the barrage of often-obscene abuse.

I actually almost wish Assange COULD be dumped in Ecuador; its human rights record is appalling, and it's only a matter of time before there is another coup and he becomes persona very non-grata.

A plain request that he return to Sweden to answer questions regarding certain allegations suddenly becomes a world-wide conspiracy to get him to the US. As Bradley Manning will not, it has been stated, face the death penalty as the person who actually stole the documents, there is no case for Assange to face it either.

Exactly, LL - he's an Aussie, he can scarcely be tried for treason against the US for doing something nasty on the internet.

He just reminds me so much of Bennett, whipping up the mob against the Great Satan to divert attention from what he is ACTUALLY in trouble over.

He is accused of having broken Swedish law; he can get his backside to Sweden and deal with it like a big boy.

Don't do the crime, if you can't face the music and do the time. His persistent refusal to go to Sweden and answer those questions merely reinforces the view in most peoples' minds that he has a lot to hide. Those women have had to put up with all kinds of snide and nasty innuendos, surely they have the right to have their say in public as much as he has. His feeble insistence that he will be extradited to the US is fast losing any credibility it had at the start; he has provided no proof that such a plan is intended by the US in his case; he has just fed this story to the idiots on the internet and they have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. As for the pro assange protesters outside the Embassy, it is a well known fact that Brits love a street protest, doesn't matter what it is for, let's just get out there, chuck a few bricks at the cops, tear down a few railings and then go to the pub for a jar, many jars. The whole thing is a total farce. LL

lily wrote:

I do hope the people who he stiffed when he broke bail are still happy with him.

Actually whether the people who stumped up the £200,000 surety between them have lost their money or not hasn't been decided. That should be settled at a hearing before a Judge in the next few days.

It was interesting listening to Vaughan Smith (the chap Assange stayed with for 11 months while appealing his extradition) on Newsnight the other night. He was arguing that because the police "know where he is" then really Assange isn't breaking bail at all. Even when the presenter pointed out his bail condition was to stay at a particular address Vaughan Smith repeated the claim that it really isn't like traditional breaking of bail by leaving the country or going into hiding as the Police know where he is as if thats OK then.

I really feel if they get away with this and the surety isn't forfeited then its one law for the rich and another for the poor.

I can't see the average person on bail getting away with breaking a curfew, lets say, and going to an evening football match even if he emailed the cops in advance, tweeted from the ground with pics proving where he was and got his face on telly celebrating a goal thus proving where he was. The police would still arrest him for breaking his bail and any surety would be forfeited. The same should apply to Assange and those who you rightly say he "stiffed" by his deliberate bail-breaking actions. And one thing is for certain, whenever he is arrested he should be remanded in CUSTODY till his legal problems in Sweden are fully sorted.

Lamplighter wrote:Don't do the crime, if you can't face the music and do the time. His persistent refusal to go to Sweden and answer those questions merely reinforces the view in most peoples' minds that he has a lot to hide. Those women have had to put up with all kinds of snide and nasty innuendos, surely they have the right to have their say in public as much as he has. His feeble insistence that he will be extradited to the US is fast losing any credibility it had at the start; he has provided no proof that such a plan is intended by the US in his case; he has just fed this story to the idiots on the internet and they have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. As for the pro assange protesters outside the Embassy, it is a well known fact that Brits love a street protest, doesn't matter what it is for, let's just get out there, chuck a few bricks at the cops, tear down a few railings and then go to the pub for a jar, many jars. The whole thing is a total farce. LL

One group who haven't been mentioned are the residents of that block where the Colombian and Ecuadorean embassies are. Most of the remainder of the block is residential and the owners are under seige almost as much as Assange with police checking entry to lifts and stationed 24/7 on all landings and protesters and Press outside 24/7. Perhaps some have the option of retreating to their country houses or villas in Tuscany but others may have only one property or have to remain there for work. I wonder if Assange will compensate them personally? Somehow I doubt it.

The police would still arrest him for breaking his bail and any surety would be forfeited. The same should apply to Assange and those who you rightly say he "stiffed" by his deliberate bail-breaking actions. And one thing is for certain, whenever he is arrested he should be remanded in CUSTODY till his legal problems in Sweden are fully sorted.

Absolutely so, Greenink. The law either has to apply to everyone or be done away with. In a democracy the people cannot have it both ways to suit.

Why are the bail guarantors able to go to court as if under special circumstances? If the people don't like being 'stiffed' then would the remedy be to bring a civil suit? Is that what other people might do, do you think? Or is it that some of the guarantors have friends in high places?

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/australia-preparing-for-julian-assanges-extradition-to-us/articleshow/15543097.cms


SYDNEY: Australia confirmed Saturday that its diplomatic post in Washington had been preparing for Julian Assange's possible extradition to the US but played it down as "contingency planning".

Trade Minister Craig Emerson said the Australian embassy in Washington had been "getting prepared for the possibility of an extradition" but stressed that there was nothing unusual in diplomats bracing for all eventualities.

"The embassy is doing its job, just to be in a position to advise the government if it believed that an extradition effort was imminent. There is no evidence of such an extradition effort," Emerson told ABC television.

"All that was happening is that the post in Washington was doing some contingency planning in the event that such an eventuality arose."

The remarks follow media reports Saturday that Australian diplomats believe Washington is targeting Assange for possible prosecution on charges including espionage and conspiracy relating to his WikiLeaks whistleblowing site.

Citing diplomatic cables from Australian officials obtained under freedom of information laws, The Age newspaper said Canberra's post in Washington was taking seriously the possible extradition of the WikiLeaks founder to the US.

According to The Age the cables showed that Australia had no objection to Assange's potential extradition and had requested early advice from the US on any decision to indict the former hacker or have him sent to the US.

It claimed that both the prime minister and foreign minister had been briefed on the matter.

Emerson confirmed that the Washington embassy had been exploring the extradition of Assange, an Australian national, as a potential scenario but he stressed that there was no evidence that the US was preparing to do so.

"You would want, as an embassy, to be in a position that if this were to arise hypothetically in the future, you wouldn't be standing flat-footed and unable to provide advice back to the government in Canberra," he said.

"I wouldn't read too much into it. People can attach their own probabilities or possibilities as to what the United States may or may not do in the future, but the fact is that there's no evidence, no evidence that the United States is seeking to extradite Julian Assange."

The trade minister noted that the US could have sought Assange's extradition from Britain rather than waiting for him to arrive in Sweden and "obviously they haven't done that".

He wouldn't comment on the claim that Australia would not oppose Assange's extradition to the US, saying only that they would abide by "normal processes" and continue providing consular assistance.

Emerson also repeated that there was little the Australian government could do for Assange, who is holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questions over sex assault claims.

Assange fears Stockholm will turn him over to the US, and was granted political asylum by Ecuador on Thursday.

"Remember that this issue about Mr Assange between the UK and Sweden is not in relation to WikiLeaks, it's in relation to allegations of something that he may or may not have done in Sweden itself and that's up to the legal authorities in those countries," Emerson said.

"The legal processes have been followed, and... there's no particular role for Australia beyond ensuring that Mr Assange has reasonable consular assistance and that's what we're offering."

Amen.

Oh, dear, the Aussies washing their hands of him, are they? Ah, diddums!! The reason he was granted asylum by Ecuador has nothing to do with his problems with the UK/Sweden/USA, it is a tanty on the Ecuadoran President's part over very unflattering remarks regarding human rights, corruption and the cracking down on free speech and the media in that country that surfaced when Wikileaks released all those emails etc. he wanted an excuse to shaft the USA. As soon as Assange has served his purpose, Ecuador will turn on him. LL

Ecuador will turn on him. LL

They sure will, LL. I wonder who Assangel will blame then?

lily wrote: Ecuador will turn on him. LL

They sure will, LL. I wonder who Assangel will blame then?

Whoever it is, he will never admit he is a walking disaster area. He isn't a man, is he, or he would face the Swedish legal system. No truth in the allegations means, in a country like Sweden, which has a very good and fair legal system, that he would walk free. I know I keep saying this, but his behaviour is that of a guilty man, not an innocent one. LL

I know I keep saying this, but his behaviour is that of a guilty man, not an innocent one. LL

You are not alone in your thoughts, LL.

Cost of WikiLeaks siege farce hits £1m as Julian Assange hides out in threadbare room with just a sunlamp, treadmill and internet connection
Wikileaks rebel is granted political asylum amid chaotic scenes yesterday
Could he be smuggled to the airport inside a diplomatic bag?
Police and crowds remain outside Victorian mansion in Knightsbridge
Tense stalemate could see cost of keeping tabs on Assange and his supporters spiral
Assange vows to take Britain to the world court is he is refused a safe passage to Ecuador


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190002/Cost-WikiLeaks-siege-farce-hits-1m-Julian-Assange-hides-threadbare-room-just-sunlamp-treadmill-internet-connection.html#ixzz23vDmfEFL

As the forkers and hounders are never done complaining about money being spent in the hope of finding Madeleine McCann, I take it they will be writing irate letters to the Home Office and the PM?

Surely they will be insisting that the albino megalomaniac be kicked out of the UK forthwith, and no more taxpayers' money be thrown away on him?

Oh wait, I know, he's speshul....

Ecuadorian President addresses his people on the Assange affair:

18 August 2012 Last updated at 20:30

Ecuador's President Rafael Correa has used his weekly national address to state that he has sought assurances over Julian Assange's extradition.

Mr Correa said he wanted a guarantee from Britain and Sweden that there would be no subsequent extradition of Mr Assange to a third country.

Ecuador has granted asylum to the Wikileaks founder, who took refuge at Ecuador's embassy in London in June.

He faces extradition to Sweden over sexual assault claims, which he denies.

President Correa said: "We've never said that Julian Assange shouldn't answer to the Swedish justice system nor contribute to the investigation into these supposed crimes.

"What we have always asked for is a guarantee that there won't be a second extradition to a third country as that would put at risk Mr Assange's life and freedom."

According to BBC correspondent Will Grant, Mr Correa touched on a wide range of topics in Ecuador, particularly education, during his televised address of several hours.

But when he turned to the subject of Mr Assange, he called a letter from the British government over its claimed legal right to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in some circumstances "intolerable" and "an explicit threat" which had to be rejected out of hand.

"Ecuador, in a sovereign fashion, decided to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr Julian Assange," he said.


President Rafael Correa used his weekly address to discuss Julian Assange
"What sort of mentality is it that still doesn't realise Latin America is now sovereign and free?"

The president said if a South American nation had acted in the same way as Britain or Sweden, it would be dubbed a dictatorship.

Ecuador had described as a "threat" a UK letter that drew attention to the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, which could allow it to potentially lift the embassy's diplomatic status to allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange for breaching his bail terms.

The Foreign Office later said the letter had been sent to clarify "all aspects of British law that Ecuador should be aware of".

Britain's permanent observer to the Organization of American States, Philip Barton, said the UK would continue to work with Ecuador "to bring this matter to an amicable and successful conclusion".

The UK Foreign Office has said it will follow its obligations, under the Extradition Act, to arrest Mr Assange if he leaves the embassy.

On Sunday, the foreign ministers of the Union of South American Nations are due to gather in Ecuador's second city, Guayaquil, to discuss the diplomatic situation caused by the asylum decision.

The bolded sections - do I detect an attempt by the Ecuadorians to extract themselves from what looks like a right cock-up? Even if he gets a thumbs up from the USAN for what he has done, will it be unanimous? Most of them are very reliant on the EU and USA for aid. It will be very interseting to see what transpires at that USAN meeting. LL

Reads to me like Ecuador just blinked, LL. It may have been the prospect of Assange's threat promise to address his adoring fans from their embassy balcony tomorrow, like some albino Aussie Evita.

I really doubt if even a quasi-military junta could put up with that. And the long-suffering Saudis upstairs might be tempted to drop something on his head.

I have just watched the Guardian's Michael White on BBC World News' Dateline London; he says he personally has never met assange but the reports he has received from others who have are in the main less than flattering or complimentary. His own observations of the events have led him to feel that assange is a con man (I can't remember his exact words). The consensus around the discussion table was that the Ecuadorians may well have made a big mistake - oh, and White said that this thing about storming the Embassy is nonsense; he reminded everyone of the Libyan siege and that the man who shot Yvonne Fletcher had to be allowed to leave the Embassy and return home. The letter is a normal procedure. Yes, bonny, I think it has just dawned on them exactly what the consequences might be for them and their debt-ridden nasty authoritarian regime. Pass the this could well be a long drawn-out affair. LL