Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador

[2952-0-0]

What a pathetic little man; pressure needs to be applied to Ecuador quickly to force them to hand over this disgusting piece of slime.

Is the same thing true every time a Russian or Chinese dissident flees to a foreign embassy, or does the west get to pick or choose when to follow international laws?

Britain's threat to storm the embassy means it's no longer about Assange or Wikileaks or so-called "sex crimes" in Sweden. It's a contravention of international law and puts Britain on the same level of Iran or Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

[2952-0-0]

Whatever one thinks of Assange and his actions, he and Ecuador have won a huge PR coup. Unasur (which by the way includes right-wing governments) has issued a statement that any attack on the embassy will be seen as hostile.

And if I were the CEO of BP I'd be sh**tting bricks over this affair. If the embassy is attacked it would be a perfectly legal justification for Correa to seize my assets in Ecuador. I'd be angrily calling Number 10 to demand Cameron to cool down.

[2952-0-0]

Yes, I have.  Ecuador cannot hide behind international agreements in order to shelter a criminal wanted for serious crimes in multiple countries.

But can the US and Britain hide behind similar agreements in order to shelter those accused of treason and subverting the state in countries like, say, Russia, Iran, China, etc?

This is so reminiscent of doublethink, where people are both aware of a lie yet also believe it because it's in the state's interest.

No, the West (TM) cannot with a straight face claim the right to shelter dissidents in the embassies in Russia, China, Iran, or X-istan, and then claim their sovereignty is violated when someone who hasn't even been charged with anything runs into an embassy of a country whose government they don't really like. This is not the 19th century where Britain and the US can openly trample on international laws to fit their selfish interests. The West is no longer dominant.

Get used to it.

[2952-0-0]

You really are a bunch of disgusting people.

EternalCynic, what makes a sex crime a so-called crime in your book? Please elaborate.

The first Swedish prosecutor who considered the charge withdrew it, claiming it had no chance of success.

Only after the US cables started emerging did a previously dismissed accusation magically reappear. The most recent documents do indicate that the US is trying to get Assange to face trial over something that he, as a non-US citizen, can't be tried for. The fact that Sweden is zealously pursuing Assange when a Serb accused of murder in Sweden isn't being pursued as zealously (you know, since murder is more important than consensual sex without a condom) makes any notion that there's a black hand behind this, credible. Assange has repeatedly stated he's happy to go to Sweden if Sweden can guarantee he won't be extradited to any third country.

And besides, suave authoritarian regimes don't accuse their dissidents of treason or subverting the state. They accuse them of tax evasion, rape, bylaw infringement, and so on. The real disgusting people are those who try to manipulate the public's concern for women in order to attain a sinister goal, not those who call their BS.