Ecuador President Says No Decision Made On Assange Asylum Request

[chuckd]

are you aware that the Swedish prosecutors travelled to Serbia earlier this year to interrogate a murder suspect, alleged to have committed murder in Sweden? If they can do it in a murder investigation why couldn't they do it in a case where the two alleged victims in the Assange Case didn't even want to press charges anyway and it is really only the very politically tarnished Swedish prosecutor who has the persisted with this matter?

Uh, Mr. Midas.

Sweden has no extradition treaty with Serbia. Swedish authorities had no choice but to travel to Serbia to interview their suspect.

[Ulysses G.]

ICJ is a forum for states, rather than individuals, to settle disputes. The latest threats are just more grandstanding from his lawyer.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Now for some questions about asylum for anyone in the know...

OK, so Assange has been given asylum by Ecuador. Done deal. Now, IF he manages to get on a plane and goes to Ecuador...what then?

Does that mean he has to pretty much stay there forever? Having been granted asylum - does that automatically come with a work permit? A life-time residence permit? Does asylum have an expiration date?

Will the gov't there give him a nice villa to live in? Or hand him the newspaper with real estate ads and tell him to get busy?

What does he do for work? Live comfortably off donations (like I believe he plans to do)?

What if he goes to another country that would extradite him? If he truly fears the US is after him I guess he will apply for Ecuadoran citizenship and stay there?

Some answers to these questions would be nice. Also, will he be able to retain his Australian citizenship if he takes out Ecuadorian citizenship?

[theslime]

Now for some questions about asylum for anyone in the know...

OK, so Assange has been given asylum by Ecuador. Done deal. Now, IF he manages to get on a plane and goes to Ecuador...what then?

Does that mean he has to pretty much stay there forever? Having been granted asylum - does that automatically come with a work permit? A life-time residence permit? Does asylum have an expiration date?

Will the gov't there give him a nice villa to live in? Or hand him the newspaper with real estate ads and tell him to get busy?

What does he do for work? Live comfortably off donations (like I believe he plans to do)?

What if he goes to another country that would extradite him? If he truly fears the US is after him I guess he will apply for Ecuadoran citizenship and stay there?

Some answers to these questions would be nice. Also, will he be able to retain his Australian citizenship if he takes out Ecuadorian citizenship?

Unless they move the goal posts Aussies can have multiple Passports, I myself have three. Cheers, Time to hit the fart sack ,

[chooka]

Now for some questions about asylum for anyone in the know...

OK, so Assange has been given asylum by Ecuador. Done deal. Now, IF he manages to get on a plane and goes to Ecuador...what then?

Does that mean he has to pretty much stay there forever? Having been granted asylum - does that automatically come with a work permit? A life-time residence permit? Does asylum have an expiration date?

Will the gov't there give him a nice villa to live in? Or hand him the newspaper with real estate ads and tell him to get busy?

What does he do for work? Live comfortably off donations (like I believe he plans to do)?

What if he goes to another country that would extradite him? If he truly fears the US is after him I guess he will apply for Ecuadoran citizenship and stay there?

Some answers to these questions would be nice. Also, will he be able to retain his Australian citizenship if he takes out Ecuadorian citizenship?

Yes Australian can hold dual citizenship. My son is an example.

[midas]

As the spokesperson for the Russian foreign minister noted: "Everybody knows that tens of alleged criminals, whose extradition is requested by many countries, including Russia, found asylum and feel safe in Great Britain. Why then refuse to do the same in the case of Assange?" Worse still, London extended a welcome to one of the bloodiest Latin American dictators, Pinochet, but denies it to Assange. This regrettable moral double standard speaks for itself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/how-south-america-sees-assange-case

[chuckd]

As the spokesperson for the Russian foreign minister noted: "Everybody knows that tens of alleged criminals, whose extradition is requested by many countries, including Russia, found asylum and feel safe in Great Britain. Why then refuse to do the same in the case of Assange?" Worse still, London extended a welcome to one of the bloodiest Latin American dictators, Pinochet, but denies it to Assange. This regrettable moral double standard speaks for itself.

http://www.guardian....es-assange-case

Just another attempt to smear the US. The article also smears the UK with the same broad brush.

From the link:

"Since the end of the last century, the expression "rogue state" has become increasingly acceptable within international public discourse. Driven by US propaganda, the concept aims to demonise countries opposed by Washington by portraying them as global threats.

However, in recent years, this argument has been turned against the White House. An alternative view is gaining traction – namely that the main rogue state of the planet and the greatest terrorist threat to world peace is none other than the United States, and it has the backing of the likes of eminent US intellectuals Noam Chomsky and William Blum, and the film director Oliver Stone.

Viewed from South America, the UK has done more than enough to share that accolade with its US cousins, and the attitude in Britain to Julian Assange is simply the latest example. The Ecuadorean foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, reported that the British government transmitted to Quito an "explicit threat in writing that they may assault our Ecuadorean embassy in London if we do not deliver Julian Assange"."

[chuckd]

Is anybody interested in seeing an official US government response to Assange's public appearance while leaning out of a window at the Ecuadorian Embassy?

_____________________________________________________

US says Assange trying to deflect attention from sex case with 'wild' persecution claims

By Matthew Lee, The Associated Press | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration on Monday accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of making "wild assertions" about U.S. persecution to deflect attention from sex allegations he faces questioning for in Sweden.

The State Department said Assange's case has nothing to do with the United States or WikiLeaks publication of secret U.S. documents and is solely a matter for Britain, where he is now holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, as well as Sweden and Ecuador.

Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland also berated Ecuador for granting Assange asylum from possible U.S. persecution at its embassy in London. And, she said Ecuador's attempt to have the Organization of American States take up the matter was a "sideshow."

Remainder of article here: http://news.yahoo.com/us-says-assange-trying-deflect-attention-sex-case-194618510.html

[midas]

As the spokesperson for the Russian foreign minister noted: "Everybody knows that tens of alleged criminals, whose extradition is requested by many countries, including Russia, found asylum and feel safe in Great Britain. Why then refuse to do the same in the case of Assange?" Worse still, London extended a welcome to one of the bloodiest Latin American dictators, Pinochet, but denies it to Assange. This regrettable moral double standard speaks for itself.

http://www.guardian....es-assange-case

Just another attempt to smear the US. The article also smears the UK with the same broad brush.

From the link:

"Since the end of the last century, the expression "rogue state" has become increasingly acceptable within international public discourse. Driven by US propaganda, the concept aims to demonise countries opposed by Washington by portraying them as global threats.

However, in recent years, this argument has been turned against the White House. An alternative view is gaining traction – namely that the main rogue state of the planet and the greatest terrorist threat to world peace is none other than the United States, and it has the backing of the likes of eminent US intellectuals Noam Chomsky and William Blum, and the film director Oliver Stone.

Viewed from South America, the UK has done more than enough to share that accolade with its US cousins, and the attitude in Britain to Julian Assange is simply the latest example. The Ecuadorean foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, reported that the British government transmitted to Quito an "explicit threat in writing that they may assault our Ecuadorean embassy in London if we do not deliver Julian Assange"."

so what? There are two sides to every story it's just that until people like Assange

came along, we only used to get one side.and how do you reconcile Pinochet

getting all the protection he did in the UK for the crimes he committed measured against Julian Assange?

Edited August 21, 2012 by midas

[midas]

Is anybody interested in seeing an official US government response to Assange's public appearance while leaning out of a window at the Ecuadorian Embassy?

_____________________________________________________

US says Assange trying to deflect attention from sex case with 'wild' persecution claims

By Matthew Lee, The Associated Press | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration on Monday accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of making "wild assertions" about U.S. persecution to deflect attention from sex allegations he faces questioning for in Sweden.

The State Department said Assange's case has nothing to do with the United States or WikiLeaks publication of secret U.S. documents and is solely a matter for Britain, where he is now holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, as well as Sweden and Ecuador.

Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland also berated Ecuador for granting Assange asylum from possible U.S. persecution at its embassy in London. And, she said Ecuador's attempt to have the Organization of American States take up the matter was a "sideshow."

Remainder of article here: http://news.yahoo.co...-194618510.html

just like the alleged " sex crimes " in Sweden are an attempt to deflect attention from the real agenda of the USA

[chuckd]

As the spokesperson for the Russian foreign minister noted: "Everybody knows that tens of alleged criminals, whose extradition is requested by many countries, including Russia, found asylum and feel safe in Great Britain. Why then refuse to do the same in the case of Assange?" Worse still, London extended a welcome to one of the bloodiest Latin American dictators, Pinochet, but denies it to Assange. This regrettable moral double standard speaks for itself.

http://www.guardian....es-assange-case

Just another attempt to smear the US. The article also smears the UK with the same broad brush.

From the link:

"Since the end of the last century, the expression "rogue state" has become increasingly acceptable within international public discourse. Driven by US propaganda, the concept aims to demonise countries opposed by Washington by portraying them as global threats.

However, in recent years, this argument has been turned against the White House. An alternative view is gaining traction – namely that the main rogue state of the planet and the greatest terrorist threat to world peace is none other than the United States, and it has the backing of the likes of eminent US intellectuals Noam Chomsky and William Blum, and the film director Oliver Stone.

Viewed from South America, the UK has done more than enough to share that accolade with its US cousins, and the attitude in Britain to Julian Assange is simply the latest example. The Ecuadorean foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, reported that the British government transmitted to Quito an "explicit threat in writing that they may assault our Ecuadorean embassy in London if we do not deliver Julian Assange"."

so what? There are two sides to every story it's just that until people like Assange

came along, we only used to get one side.and how do you reconcile Pinochet

getting all the protection he did in the UK for the crimes he committed measured against Julian Assange?

What does Pinochet's treatment have to do with Assange and the Ecuadorian government?

Edited August 21, 2012 by chuckd

[Scott]

The links provided give some information and comparisons. The thread, however, is still about Julian Assange. Please stay on the topic.

[ozziebloke]

Is anybody interested in seeing an official US government response to Assange's public appearance while leaning out of a window at the Ecuadorian Embassy?

_____________________________________________________

US says Assange trying to deflect attention from sex case with 'wild' persecution claims

By Matthew Lee, The Associated Press | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration on Monday accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of making "wild assertions" about U.S. persecution to deflect attention from sex allegations he faces questioning for in Sweden.

The State Department said Assange's case has nothing to do with the United States or WikiLeaks publication of secret U.S. documents and is solely a matter for Britain, where he is now holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, as well as Sweden and Ecuador.

Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland also berated Ecuador for granting Assange asylum from possible U.S. persecution at its embassy in London. And, she said Ecuador's attempt to have the Organization of American States take up the matter was a "sideshow."

Remainder of article here: http://news.yahoo.co...-194618510.html

just like the alleged " sex crimes " in Sweden are an attempt to deflect attention from the real agenda of the USA

A conspiracy here,A conspiracy there, Here a conspiracy, There a conspiracy, Everywhere a conspiracy ???????

[chuckd]

Now for some questions about asylum for anyone in the know...

OK, so Assange has been given asylum by Ecuador. Done deal. Now, IF he manages to get on a plane and goes to Ecuador...what then?

Does that mean he has to pretty much stay there forever? Having been granted asylum - does that automatically come with a work permit? A life-time residence permit? Does asylum have an expiration date?

Will the gov't there give him a nice villa to live in? Or hand him the newspaper with real estate ads and tell him to get busy?

What does he do for work? Live comfortably off donations (like I believe he plans to do)?

What if he goes to another country that would extradite him? If he truly fears the US is after him I guess he will apply for Ecuadoran citizenship and stay there?

Some answers to these questions would be nice. Also, will he be able to retain his Australian citizenship if he takes out Ecuadorian citizenship?

Only the citizenship question was responded to, and that from an Australian viewpoint. Several questions remain.

All the unanswered questions are in Koheesti's post and they relate to his living arrangements and what he will be able to do for the rest of his life...i.e. job, residence, income, free travel, transport, etc. You know, the every day mundane tasks of living on your own.

Will he still be supported by blind donations (and donors) or will he be able to tap the Wikileaks donations for his upkeep?

It is likely much of the free world will be closed to him, at least those countries that have extradition treaties with the UK and Sweden. As we all know, but will not admit, there are no charges pending against him from the US at present.

Anyway, assuming he manages to tunnel his way out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and get out of England, where does he go and what does he do after he gets there?

Midas? Anyone?

[midas]

Now for some questions about asylum for anyone in the know...

OK, so Assange has been given asylum by Ecuador. Done deal. Now, IF he manages to get on a plane and goes to Ecuador...what then?

Does that mean he has to pretty much stay there forever? Having been granted asylum - does that automatically come with a work permit? A life-time residence permit? Does asylum have an expiration date?

Will the gov't there give him a nice villa to live in? Or hand him the newspaper with real estate ads and tell him to get busy?

What does he do for work? Live comfortably off donations (like I believe he plans to do)?

What if he goes to another country that would extradite him? If he truly fears the US is after him I guess he will apply for Ecuadoran citizenship and stay there?

Some answers to these questions would be nice. Also, will he be able to retain his Australian citizenship if he takes out Ecuadorian citizenship?

Only the citizenship question was responded to, and that from an Australian viewpoint. Several questions remain.

All the unanswered questions are in Koheesti's post and they relate to his living arrangements and what he will be able to do for the rest of his life...i.e. job, residence, income, free travel, transport, etc. You know, the every day mundane tasks of living on your own.

Will he still be supported by blind donations (and donors) or will he be able to tap the Wikileaks donations for his upkeep?

It is likely much of the free world will be closed to him, at least those countries that have extradition treaties with the UK and Sweden. As we all know, but will not admit, there are no charges pending against him from the US at present.

Anyway, assuming he manages to tunnel his way out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and get out of England, where does he go and what does he do after he gets there?

Midas? Anyone?

I am only speculating but I would imagine Ecuador and perhaps some of the other South American countries that met yesterday could end up supporting wik leaks financially or in other ways and I as I understood it he still carries out work for them.

I would imagine he would also be able to have relatively free passage through some of the other countries in South America such as Venezuela, Cuba etc and any others that seem to back Ecuador yesterday. Have you seen the recent strong endorsement by Hugo chavez?

[meand]

Yes, he could hide in the Sierra Maestra mountains as Castro did years ago. I think you need a geography lesson though

[chooka]

Now for some questions about asylum for anyone in the know...

OK, so Assange has been given asylum by Ecuador. Done deal. Now, IF he manages to get on a plane and goes to Ecuador...what then?

Does that mean he has to pretty much stay there forever? Having been granted asylum - does that automatically come with a work permit? A life-time residence permit? Does asylum have an expiration date?

Will the gov't there give him a nice villa to live in? Or hand him the newspaper with real estate ads and tell him to get busy?

What does he do for work? Live comfortably off donations (like I believe he plans to do)?

What if he goes to another country that would extradite him? If he truly fears the US is after him I guess he will apply for Ecuadoran citizenship and stay there?

Some answers to these questions would be nice. Also, will he be able to retain his Australian citizenship if he takes out Ecuadorian citizenship?

Only the citizenship question was responded to, and that from an Australian viewpoint. Several questions remain.

All the unanswered questions are in Koheesti's post and they relate to his living arrangements and what he will be able to do for the rest of his life...i.e. job, residence, income, free travel, transport, etc. You know, the every day mundane tasks of living on your own.

Will he still be supported by blind donations (and donors) or will he be able to tap the Wikileaks donations for his upkeep?

It is likely much of the free world will be closed to him, at least those countries that have extradition treaties with the UK and Sweden. As we all know, but will not admit, there are no charges pending against him from the US at present.

Anyway, assuming he manages to tunnel his way out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and get out of England, where does he go and what does he do after he gets there?

Midas? Anyone?

There are no charges from any country, but that does not mean that they (U.S) or any other country does not want him.

[Scott]

If/should the US decide to file charges against Assange, it is going t be a difficult case to prosecute if they ever catch him. Charging him under the Espionage act will be difficult. He's not a US citizen, no evidence to support a claim that he sold/traded or gave information to the 'enemy' (whoever the enemy is). The information was made available to virtually everyone at the same time.

Assange is a part of an organization, Wikileaks. How can Assange be charged, but not Wikileaks? What level of culpability can be apportioned to Assange and what part to the organization as a whole? Who made the ultimate decision on what information went out and to whom?

Should the newspapers and other media be indicted as well? They knew full well that the information being published was already under scrutiny because the US government had already been making loud and threatening noises.

The Freedom of Speech advocates are going to be out in full force, not to mention the Assange supporters. It will be a very contentious and murky case.

[Ulysses G.]

We don't know what evidence the U.S has against Assange. Many people think that he encouraged Manning to steal the documents and there is a real possibility that Manning would admit it if offered a lesser sentence.

If prosecuters can show that the Assange intended to harm the US government he can be tried under the espionage act and some of Assange's public comments suggested a desire to undermine US foreign policy, comments that could backfire on him in court.

Another option for prosecutors may be to see whether they could charge him with something like conspiracy to disclose classified documents which would not be difficult to prove.

Personally, I think that the US government would be quite happy to leave him in purgatory. He is in a prison of his own making that puts off others that might do the same thing and and the US does not have to take responsibility for putting him there.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[ozziebloke]

Now for some questions about asylum for anyone in the know...

OK, so Assange has been given asylum by Ecuador. Done deal. Now, IF he manages to get on a plane and goes to Ecuador...what then?

Does that mean he has to pretty much stay there forever? Having been granted asylum - does that automatically come with a work permit? A life-time residence permit? Does asylum have an expiration date?

Will the gov't there give him a nice villa to live in? Or hand him the newspaper with real estate ads and tell him to get busy?

What does he do for work? Live comfortably off donations (like I believe he plans to do)?

What if he goes to another country that would extradite him? If he truly fears the US is after him I guess he will apply for Ecuadoran citizenship and stay there?

Some answers to these questions would be nice. Also, will he be able to retain his Australian citizenship if he takes out Ecuadorian citizenship?

Only the citizenship question was responded to, and that from an Australian viewpoint. Several questions remain.

All the unanswered questions are in Koheesti's post and they relate to his living arrangements and what he will be able to do for the rest of his life...i.e. job, residence, income, free travel, transport, etc. You know, the every day mundane tasks of living on your own.

Will he still be supported by blind donations (and donors) or will he be able to tap the Wikileaks donations for his upkeep?

It is likely much of the free world will be closed to him, at least those countries that have extradition treaties with the UK and Sweden. As we all know, but will not admit, there are no charges pending against him from the US at present.

Anyway, assuming he manages to tunnel his way out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and get out of England, where does he go and what does he do after he gets there?

Midas? Anyone?

I am only speculating but I would imagine Ecuador and perhaps some of the other South American countries that met yesterday could end up supporting wik leaks financially or in other ways and I as I understood it he still carries out work for them.

I would imagine he would also be able to have relatively free passage through some of the other countries in South America such as Venezuela, Cuba etc and any others that seem to back Ecuador yesterday. Have you seen the recent strong endorsement by Hugo chavez?

Wouldn't that make him a complete hypocrite if he were to work for these South American countries that control the media outlets and suppress free speech???

[Ulysses G.]

Wouldn't that make him a complete hypocrite if he were to work for these South American countries that control the media outlets and suppress free speech???

He and his supporters have no problem with that. All they care about is sticking it to America.

[chuckd]

Only the citizenship question was responded to, and that from an Australian viewpoint. Several questions remain.

All the unanswered questions are in Koheesti's post and they relate to his living arrangements and what he will be able to do for the rest of his life...i.e. job, residence, income, free travel, transport, etc. You know, the every day mundane tasks of living on your own.

Will he still be supported by blind donations (and donors) or will he be able to tap the Wikileaks donations for his upkeep?

It is likely much of the free world will be closed to him, at least those countries that have extradition treaties with the UK and Sweden. As we all know, but will not admit, there are no charges pending against him from the US at present.

Anyway, assuming he manages to tunnel his way out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and get out of England, where does he go and what does he do after he gets there?

Midas? Anyone?

There are no charges from any country, but that does not mean that they (U.S) or any other country does not want him.

If there are no charges from any country, why are the London police standing around waiting for him to come out of hiding?

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

I have always wondered why Ecuador would even want to get involved with Assange since President Correa has been rather restrictive on his nation's press corps. The following article puts a little different face on the actions of the Ecuadorian government. It might be more about South American politics than Assange...and probably is. Assange might have jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

It’s Not About Assange

By ANITA ISAACS

Published: August 19, 2012

ECUADOR’S decision to grant asylum to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks wanted in Sweden for questioning over claims of rape and sexual molestation, has put the country in a political standoff with Britain, where he is holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy.

But the confusion in London has, in fact, little if anything to do with Ecuadorean-British relations and everything to do with regional and local politics in the Western Hemisphere. And it has little to do with protecting Mr. Assange’s right to a fair trial or freedom of the press — which Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, has trampled upon at home.

Instead, it is an attempt by Mr. Correa to settle old scores with the United States, display his political prowess in the run-up to Ecuadorean presidential elections next year and make a power play for a leadership role on the Latin American left.

Article continues here: http://www.nytimes.c...r=1&ref=opinion

[midas]

'Anonymous' hackers target Government websites in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/9490423/Anonymous-hackers-target-Government-websites-in-support-of-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange.html

[bobbin]

I've come late to the thread and have only skimmed previous posts. Enough to see that the usual stalwart defenders of the United States and it's imperialist running dog censored (heard this phrase again a couple of days ago and remembered it fondly. It has a certain ring to it..) have taken their position versus all-comers. You know, the ones who aren't retired U.S. government employees, knee-jerk "my country, right or wrong" patriots etc.

I'm pleased he's made it this far. Unfortunately, he is no longer living as a free man, and won't be until a possibly drawn-out (by his opponents, who are pleased he is, at least for now, warehoused) solution is found to the diplomatic impasse.

Having said that, I also acknowledge JA is lucky not to be up against some other governments who would certainly have disappeared him long ago. Pour encourager les autres....

He's got big cojones. At least at the time he decided to release what he had. Now, he's just trying to survive the process. I'm sure he anticipated negative fallout from his actions, but when they really turn up the heat, theoretical goes out the window.

[midas]

ICJ is a forum for states, rather than individuals, to settle disputes. The latest threats are just more grandstanding from his lawyer.

Assange could go to international court

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Assange-could-go-to-international-court-XFDYW?OpenDocument&src=hp8

[Ulysses G.]

As I said, the latest threats are just more grandstanding from his lawyer.

"There is nothing new. We are still waiting for Mr Assange," Helena Ekstrand, spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office, told AFP on Thursday

Swedish justice's position on the case is not new. The prosecution believes that Assange, who is facing rape and sexual assault allegations from two women from Stockholm, should go to Sweden to give his version of the facts.

[Scott]

That would be a very interesting case.

[midas]

That would be a very interesting case.

I think so too.. You see while Ulysses claims it's no more than " grandstanding from his lawyer."

he is overlooking the fact that Baltasar Garzón it is not just some lawyer

As a senior former judge he is described as having revolutionized the international justice system

two decades ago by issuing an international arrest warrant for the former Head of State of Chile

Pinochet.

Being a former judge himself I also think he is likely to have good standing and a good rapport

with the judges at the International Court of Justice.

Anyway I hardly think someone of his stature would be likely to be blowing hot air

if he wasn't quite certain that he would be able to get such a hearing.

Edited August 23, 2012 by midas

[midas]

As I said, the latest threats are just more grandstanding from his lawyer.

"There is nothing new. We are still waiting for Mr Assange," Helena Ekstrand, spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office, told AFP on Thursday

Swedish justice's position on the case is not new. The prosecution believes that Assange, who is facing rape and sexual assault allegations from two women from Stockholm, should go to Sweden to give his version of the facts.

should go to Sweden to give his version of the facts.

but you see if he does that it is highly likely he would never come back. particularly based on

the performance of Sweden in 2001 when they handed over two asylum seekers to the CIA

resulting in them being tortured

“‘In December 2001, Sweden handed over two asylum seekers to the CIA, which then rendered them to be tortured in Egypt. A ruling from the U.N. Human Rights Committee found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for its role in that rendition (the two individuals later received a substantial settlement from the Swedish government).’

http://www.accuracy.org/release/assanges-asylum/

[midas]

Only the citizenship question was responded to, and that from an Australian viewpoint. Several questions remain.

All the unanswered questions are in Koheesti's post and they relate to his living arrangements and what he will be able to do for the rest of his life...i.e. job, residence, income, free travel, transport, etc. You know, the every day mundane tasks of living on your own.

Will he still be supported by blind donations (and donors) or will he be able to tap the Wikileaks donations for his upkeep?

It is likely much of the free world will be closed to him, at least those countries that have extradition treaties with the UK and Sweden. As we all know, but will not admit, there are no charges pending against him from the US at present.

Anyway, assuming he manages to tunnel his way out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and get out of England, where does he go and what does he do after he gets there?

Midas? Anyone?

I am only speculating but I would imagine Ecuador and perhaps some of the other South American countries that met yesterday could end up supporting wik leaks financially or in other ways and I as I understood it he still carries out work for them.

I would imagine he would also be able to have relatively free passage through some of the other countries in South America such as Venezuela, Cuba etc and any others that seem to back Ecuador yesterday. Have you seen the recent strong endorsement by Hugo chavez?

Wouldn't that make him a complete hypocrite if he were to work for these South American countries that control the media outlets and suppress free speech???

not according to facts given by the president of Ecuador

“Correa continued: ‘On the other hand, WikiLeaks wrote a lot about the goals that the national media pursue, about the power groups who seek help and report to foreign embassies. … Let them publish everything they have about the Ecuadorian government. You will see how many things about those who oppose the civil revolution in Ecuador will come to light.

Things to do with opportunism, betrayal, and being self serving.’

“Correa made the point that when WikiLeaks cables became available to the national media in Ecuador, they chose not to publish them — partly because the documents aired so much ‘dirty linen’ about the media themselves. He added that when he took office in January 2007, five out of seven privately owned TV channels in Ecuador were run by bankers. The bankers were using the guise of journalism to interfere in politics and to destabilize governments, for fear of losing power.”

http://www.accuracy.org/release/assanges-asylum/