Photo Reveals UK Plan: "Assange To Be Arrested Under All Circumstances" 847
politkal writes with the lead from a CNN story: "A policeman in London appears to have accidentally revealed an arrest plan for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in what UK media have branded an embarrassing slip-up by London's Metropolitan Police. Clearly legible in a zoomed-in view of the clipboard, on a sheet of paper headed 'Restricted,' are the words: 'EQ Embassy brief — Summary of current position re. Assange. Action required — Assange to be arrested under all circumstances.' It goes on to suggest possible ways in which he could exit the building, such as in a diplomatic bag or vehicle."
Recanted .... (Score:0, Informative)
You must be reading Assange's PR bs ...... the "recanted" has being disproven time and time again.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
Not familiar with Swedish definitions of rape or whether the case would be prosecuted if it were so politicized, but in point of fact, neither of the girls have recanted. One of them says she's against the charges as being filed, but hasn't changed her testimony or disputed her given account of what he did.
If the case is really so strong, why are you making things up about it?
Re:How does he fit in a diplomatic bag? (Score:4, Informative)
Britain claims that they can inspect diplomatic bags.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
"Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.
This again? Yes, it "involves" him failing to use a condom. But, with respect to one of the counts, it's a lot more than that: the allegation is that he had sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent. This lack of consent was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.
The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf [bbc.co.uk]
Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.
The alleged "recantation" has been addressed a bit below.
Doesn't work that way (Score:5, Informative)
Diplomats are not created by the guest country, but by the host country. The guest country says "We have this person here that we wish to represent us to you," the host country then says "We accept that person as your representative and confer upon them status as a diplomat." There are various level of official ceremony that go along with this, depending on the rank of the diplomat (for example in the US an ambassador meets with the president and presents formal credentials and so on, whereas a junior lackey gets little more than an ok from the State Department).
You don't just get to declare someone to be a diplomat at any time because you feel like it. Remember that the whole thing is a treaty between countries, not a unilateral deceleration enforced by some higher power. This is also why diplomats can be expelled by the host country. They say "This person is no longer welcome here." In the event said diplomat doesn't leave, they lose their diplomatic status and can be subject to arrest and so on.
So no, Ecuador can't just say "Oh ya, he's a diplomat," the UK would simply say "No, sorry, we haven't recognized him as such."
Also even if they could there'd be the problem of diplomatic fallout. Not only with the UK, but other countries as well. Many nations might decide they weren't interested in having an diplomats from a nation if that nation would decide to make criminals (Assanage is a criminal in Britain, he skipped his bail) diplomats when it suited them.
Re:Whose trust is being violated here? (Score:5, Informative)
The collateral murder video shows unarmed civilians (including a reporter) being killed by US helicopters. The incident was later covered up by the US military. It was not, by and stretch of the imagination, a friendly fire incident. The criminal act exposed was the coverup.
Morgan Tsvangirai is doing very well, thank you very much. He was never in any danger, and is not in any danger today. Any fallout from the article published was political only. And do you believe that Zimbabweans don't deserve to know that their prime minister was was secretly urging the US to continue sanctions while publicly he asked them to discontinue them? I think it's wrong to say one thing and do another, but maybe that's just me. It's not like the people of Zimbabwe are going to say "in light of that, maybe Mugabe isn't such a bad guy." Most of the people I talked to when I was over there hated they guy and couldn't wait to be rid of him.
"Leaving country with permission" == "Fleeing"?? (Score:5, Informative)
it would appear the OP is pointing out the unusual tenacity with which they're pursuing someone for a rape charge,
Perhaps you noticed that the "unusual tenacity" came to be when Assange became a fugitive from justice? Think about it. ... What did Assange do? Broke his bond and fled the police.
No bond was broken, no fleeing occurred. Assange left Sweden weeks after the incident in question, with the express permission of the prosecutor's office. For that matter, he isn't even wanted on a rape charge, he's wanted for questioning in relation to a possible charge. He has offered numerous times to talk with the Swedish prosecutor or a representative while in the UK. None of this is terribly consistent with the actions of someone purportedly on the lam.
Worth noting, from a transcript [truth-out.org] of a Democracy Now discussion, emphasis mine:
"...Sweden and the United Kingdom both refused to provide assurances that once matters were dealt with in Sweden, that Julian would be permitted to leave the country and would not be extradited to the United States. They refused to provide those assurances."
This is probably the more salient point regarding Assange's reluctance to step again on Swedish soil.
Cheers,
Re:That's nice (Score:4, Informative)
What's really sad is that this isn't some random general-population site on the internet, this is supposed to be the home of geeks and nerds, people who are supposedly smarter than the average. Even so, your words are true; this level of stupidity is normal here in 2012. The intelligence level here on Slashdot, like everywhere else in American society, has fallen greatly in the last 10 years or so.
Re:That's nice (Score:4, Informative)
You have an electoral system. You don't decide who gets to be president, you get to decide who your State thinks should be president. And that State gets a vote that is dependant on how many people there are (ideally). If 49% of people pick Republican, and 51% pick Democrat, then 100% of the electoral votes of the State go towards the Democrat. And because of this, other parties can't get a word in edgewise.
There have been states that have gone to vote for third parties (or independents), but these were barely even a blip because mainly it's Republican or Democrat.
Let's face it, the concept of United States is dead anyway; the federal government has seized so much centralized power since the Civil War, it's no longer a collection of states with a small central government. So either fix that, or don't pretend any more and go the full monty. National elections, where every vote is a vote.
Re:London Policeman Obviously Supports Wikileaks (Score:5, Informative)
Oh no, this has happened many times before in the UK. Usually it is politicians carrying top secret documents as they walk into Number 10, but the police and army have both been caught out as well.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have any links to back this up? It's obvious that Equador is independent of the US's control, but this is the first time I've heard of long term exclusivity contracts on Equador's oil contracts.
Maybe not exclusivity... but consider:
Petroecuador was to hold a 60 percent stake in the joint venture, and Sinopec the remaining 40 percent [chinafrica.asia]
China hands over $1bn for Ecuador oil [camex.ca]
China's CNPC in talks with Ecuador over $12.5 bln refinery [reuters.com]
Ecuador’s Rating Raised By S&P On China Loans, Oil Proceeds [bloomberg.com]
Re:That's nice (Score:2, Informative)
You've got to be kidding.
It's funny that the Wall Street Journal you link to would consider $1.9 million to be distinctly "middle class" when it comes to tax policy, but in the case of an organization serving the world it's suddenly "rich".
You think the Wall Street Journal would consider $1.9 million "rich" if it was the cutoff point for taxing "the rich"?
Anyway, considering the most powerful nations in the world are after Assange for pressing his penis against a sleeping girl with whom he was sleeping and are prepared to storm embassies and engage in other acts of war in order to get their hands on him, I'm guessing $1.9million is going to get burned through pretty quickly in legal funds alone (assuming he ever sees the inside of a courtroom).
Come on...
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
Except they can - and have in the past - done these sorts of interviews in other countries.
Assange has had an open invitation to the Swedish authorities since day 1 to interview him in the UK.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
An aside...
You know Karl Rove, right? The guy that resigned from the Bush administration under a cloud after being accused of trying to corrupt the Department of Justice ie. sacking US prosecutors for not persuing cases in a 'party political' manner? Guess who he's working for these days - the Prime Minister of Sweden [huffingtonpost.com].
That's just one of the bad smells around this whole thing.