Ecuador Grants Asylum to Assange

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Ecuador's foreign minister announced today that his country has granted political asylum to Julian Assange. It looks as though Assange is now stuck in the embassy indefinitely.

An Ecuadorean official said late Wednesday that the British government had made it clear it would not allow Mr. Assange to leave the country to travel to Ecuador, so even with a grant of asylum or similar protection, he would probably remain stuck in the embassy.
Click to expand...
 
wow is Ecuador really willing to start a war on this o_O
 
I can't figure out why any country would allow asylum for this criminal. What do they have to gain from it? I'm patiently waiting for him to be prosecuted and locked up until there's nothing left of him but a skeleton.
 
Britain should just let him rot in the embassy for the rest of his life ... if he wants to imprison himself in a small apartment then that is HIS choice ... eventually he will get tired of his self imposed exile or he will get sick and be required to leave the building ... they can nab him then ;)
 
Blkout said:
I can't figure out why any country would allow asylum for this criminal. What do they have to gain from it? I'm patiently waiting for him to be prosecuted and locked up until there's nothing left of him but a skeleton.
Click to expand...

Why? Because he exposed the corruption and hypocrisy of the US government?

How ironic that the British have become mere lapdogs for the US.
 
damicatz said:
Why? Because he exposed the corruption and hypocrisy of the US government?

How ironic that the British have become mere lapdogs for the US.
Click to expand...

I think its more to do with the fact he's wanted in regards to rape in Sweden.
 
Azhar said:
He's wanted in Sweden for rape.
Click to expand...

Sweden's definition of "rape" was written by feminists. See, in Sweden, simply forgetting to bring a condom is considered "rape" even if the sex was consensual. Of course, the female has no obligation to do anything; it is always the man.

And of course, the "rape allegation" just happens to come right after he leaks documents embarrassing the US government.

And, as it turns out, the "accuser" also has connections to the CIA.
 
Azhar said:
He's wanted in Sweden for rape.
Click to expand...
He's wanted for questioning, he hasn't been charged with a crime. If you read the circumstances of the alleged "rapes" it's pretty obvious he didn't rape the women in question.
 
Blkout said:
I can't figure out why any country would allow asylum for this criminal. What do they have to gain from it? I'm patiently waiting for him to be prosecuted and locked up until there's nothing left of him but a skeleton.
Click to expand...

Because The US and UK are using Assange as an example to any would be whistle blower what happens if they try to reveal their corruption and illegal activities being conducted throughout the world.

Still not convinced???

Well riddle me this brother. How is it all of this nonsense occurred because he was accused of having intercourse without a condom with a prostitute in Sweden? Second, how can it be considered rape even after it was consensual and the woman's testimony revealed that fact?

OK, I see I'm not getting through to you...

11 hours ago the UK threatened to raid the Ecuadorian embassy in order to get Assange. Which believe you me would of stirred up a diplomatic fiasco.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/uk-threatened-to-raid-embassy/
But the real question you should ask yourself is why the hell would the UK risk all this trouble going after one man? And no it's not because of that ridiculous rape allegation by a whooa (hooker). This is 2012, do your own research and you'll be surprised what you might find out; however, don't use fox news or msnbc are your news source, you're gonna have to dig a little deeper my friend.

Bottom line is this: if Assange sets one foot in Sweden the US is going to extradite his ass to the states immediately so they can start drumming up bullshit charges ranging from war crimes against humanity, espionage, terrorism, or anything else to stir up the uninformed masses in this country. My only question I have though is what kind of info does Assange have that against the banks that he threatened to use in the event of his capture or possible death?

Or I could be trolling you too dude.... Or maybe I'm not 0_o
 
damicatz said:
Why? Because he exposed the corruption and hypocrisy of the US government?

How ironic that the British have become mere lapdogs for the US.
Click to expand...

Exposing corruption is a good thing. Exposing corruption with the blatant disregard for human life is just as bad as the ones who are corrupt. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
damicatz said:
No but the CIA will be busy.

You can expect right-wing militants in Ecuador to be armed by the US government in support of a coup.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure hiring people into the CIA counts as creating jobs. We need jobs. Jobs are good.
 
Amaroth said:
Exposing corruption is a good thing. Exposing corruption with the blatant disregard for human life is just as bad as the ones who are corrupt. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...

Please provide specifics. Who, precisely was harmed? What exact data caused this harm?

I hear this often but I have yet to see any actual evidence that he placed anyone at risk. Even if he did, the blame would lie on the politicians and the governments that placed those people their rather than with the messenger.
 
Let's just say they did raid the Embassy, nothing holding the UK back right?

Actually Embassies are protected under international law (as in they are included in the UN charter) and are sovereign soil for the government who owns it. Consulates on the other hand are just rented/owned space, and are subject to the laws in the area where they reside. What you are talking about is a consulate reform (I don't know why it is called this), it just is. This can not happen to an embassy. Only the UN or the country who owns it can close one. The people that work in one can loose their diplomatic authority/protection and become persona non grata. But as long as they stay in the embassy, there is nothing that the host country can do.

If Britain decided to raid one, they would be breaking at least 14 international laws, that I know of. And would be an equivilant act of sending troops into their country to arrest someone. If they did this, it would threaten all of the British embassies world wide. The UN would get involved and there would be sanctions up the wazzooo.

I think what happened was that a low level bureaucrat or cop did something that now is blowing up in their face.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I'm pretty sure hiring people into the CIA counts as creating jobs. We need jobs. Jobs are good.
Click to expand...

I thought bigger government with more employees was bad? I'm confused now.

damicatz said:
Please provide specifics. Who, precisely was harmed? What exact data caused this harm?

I hear this often but I have yet to see any actual evidence that he placed anyone at risk. Even if he did, the blame would lie on the politicians and the governments that placed those people their rather than with the messenger.
Click to expand...

Oh, and this.
 
damicatz said:
Why? Because he exposed the corruption and hypocrisy of the US government?

How ironic that the British have become mere lapdogs for the US.
Click to expand...


I am in agreement here. Assange is a whistle blower who is looking to escape the possible deportation to the US. Ecuador is stepping up to do the right thing.
 
damicatz said:
Sweden's definition of "rape" was written by feminists. See, in Sweden, simply forgetting to bring a condom is considered "rape" even if the sex was consensual. Of course, the female has no obligation to do anything; it is always the man.

And of course, the "rape allegation" just happens to come right after he leaks documents embarrassing the US government.

And, as it turns out, the "accuser" also has connections to the CIA.
Click to expand...

I get so tired of hearing "rape as defined by feminists" in this fucked up world. Man has been doing a real fucked up job everywhere defining rape and turning blind eyes on rape victims and making them the criminal.

Every site I've ever read about this so-call ties with CIA say one of the three MAY have ties. POSSIBLY have ties. COULD have ties. Assange was such a fucking god of releasing classified information, but somehow he can't find information about this alleged ties with the CIA. I'll reserve judgement until we all know more. His running away isn't making him look good, and his throwing cohorts under the bus at every turn is pretty fucking shitty too. He doesn't care about anything but Julian Assange.
 
Right now this is a big win for the US ... depending on the exact statute of limitations on rape in Sweden (most countries have a 7-10 year limit on criminal offenses) Assange just sentenced himself to 7-10 years of house arrest (until the statute of limitations expires) ... Britain should just block off the embassy to prevent him leaving and let him sit until the statute of limitations expires (Assange has asylum not diplomatic immunity so he cannot leave the boundaries of the embassy) ... this is better since there is no need for a trial ... he has chosen to imprison himself ... no fuss no mess ... just let him rot for 7 years ;)
 
LOL, Assange is still in the news? I though he would have quietly died in a horrible car accident by now.
Assange is an ass, he is not a journalist, not some hero exposing the truth. He did the document trickle, letting out the damning, keeping the exculpatory hidden. He's sold out his source, at the drop of a hat, either through sheer incompetence, or simply not giving a shit so long as his desire for fame was met. If the dumb ass would just carry his self back for his trial, he will prolly beat it, or at least he would of had he not run, and go about his life of looking for bee's nests and hitting them with sticks.
 
actually in most jurisdictions statue of limitations are tolled when there has been a warrant issued. so assange most likey is on life time house arrest.
 
Azhar said:
I get so tired of hearing "rape as defined by feminists" in this fucked up world. Man has been doing a real fucked up job everywhere defining rape and turning blind eyes on rape victims and making them the criminal.

Every site I've ever read about this so-call ties with CIA say one of the three MAY have ties. POSSIBLY have ties. COULD have ties. Assange was such a fucking god of releasing classified information, but somehow he can't find information about this alleged ties with the CIA. I'll reserve judgement until we all know more. His running away isn't making him look good, and his throwing cohorts under the bus at every turn is pretty fucking shitty too. He doesn't care about anything but Julian Assange.
Click to expand...

How does having consensual sex without a condom make someone a victim?

Why should it be only the man's responsibility to bring birth control? After all, it takes two to tango.

Feminism isn't about women's rights, it's about hating men.
 
Blkout said:
I can't figure out why any country would allow asylum for this criminal. What do they have to gain from it? I'm patiently waiting for him to be prosecuted and locked up until there's nothing left of him but a skeleton.
Click to expand...

http://blog.sfgate.com/abraham/2010...an-assange-rape-charge-for-not-using-condoms/

Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape.
Click to expand...



The charge that a condom was not used is backed by The Daily Mail UK. In reporting the contents of the police report that was filed, this is noted by the news publication:

According to a police source: ‘They had a discussion and decided it would be OK to share the living space, then went out together for dinner.

‘When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom – it had split.

‘She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.’

Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.

In her police statement, Woman B described how, in the wake of the Afghanistan leaks, she saw Assange being interviewed on television and became instantly fascinated – some might even say obsessed.

She said she thought him ‘interesting, brave and admirable’.

Over the following two weeks she read everything she could find about him on the internet and followed news reports about his activities.

She discovered that he would be visiting Sweden to give a seminar, so she emailed the organisers to offer her help.

She registered to attend and booked the Saturday off work.
Click to expand...

The Daily Mail account goes on to describe “Woman B” as “keen to get Julian’s attention,” but after proving a power source for his computer observed that he seemed more interested in the computer than her. Eventually, even though she didn’t want to have sex with him, without a condom, they did.

The next morning, she reportedly went shopping to make breakfast for Julian.

The problem compounded when, after promising to call her, he did not do so and Assange allegedly did not answer calls from her.

Upset, Woman B managed to contact Woman A, whom she met at the same event after having sex with Julian. They “compared notes” and determined that both had unprotected sex with Assange. Fearing transmission of an STD, the claim was they both asked him to take a test and he refused. (Which calls into question the claim that he did not call or take calls from Woman B. Confusing.)
Click to expand...
 
Edit: I cannot read the NYtime article because it wants me to register or wants cookies, don't want either.
 
damicatz said:
How does having consensual sex without a condom make someone a victim?

Why should it be only the man's responsibility to bring birth control? After all, it takes two to tango.

Feminism isn't about women's rights, it's about hating men.
Click to expand...

HE said it was consensual. And anyone has a right to withdraw their consent at any time during sex, and if you refuse their withdrawal of consent, then it becomes sex against their will. It's not so black and white as "well she DID say it was ok, so there's no backies!"

Feminism isn't just about hating men. It also becomes feminism when you disagree with them.
 
damicatz said:
How does having consensual sex without a condom make someone a victim?

Why should it be only the man's responsibility to bring birth control? After all, it takes two to tango.

Feminism isn't about women's rights, it's about hating men.
Click to expand...

it's clear from the facts he broke the laws of sweeden and that's what matters. he had sex with two women, and wouldnt consent to an STD test. Sweeden takes more seriously men going around and infecting people that the U.S does. he has no one else to blame but himself.
 
damicatz said:
How does having consensual sex without a condom make someone a victim?

Why should it be only the man's responsibility to bring birth control? After all, it takes two to tango.

Feminism isn't about women's rights, it's about hating men.
Click to expand...

You seem like you're getting yourself really excited over this whole "evil" feminist thing.
 
Anyone like to wager if average Joe Blow( who didn't P-offed anyone) was charged with this "rape", would cause a ruckus like this?
 
ikarinokami said:
it's clear from the facts he broke the laws of sweeden and that's what matters. he had sex with two women, and wouldnt consent to an STD test. Sweeden takes more seriously men going around and infecting people that the U.S does. he has no one else to blame but himself.
Click to expand...

Then why haven't actual charges been filed against Assange?

Surely, after this long, they would have found enough "evidence" to actually charge him.

Why can't they guarantee that he won't be extradited to the US? Since the *alleged* crime occurred in Sweden, that shouldn't be a problem.

In fact, before Assange crossed the US, the prosecutor declined to prosecute because of a lack of evidence.

The amount of bleating going on in here is amazing. Keep believing what your government tells you.
 
damicatz said:
Then why haven't actual charges been filed against Assange?

Surely, after this long, they would have found enough "evidence" to actually charge him.

Why can't they guarantee that he won't be extradited to the US? Since the *alleged* crime occurred in Sweden, that shouldn't be a problem.

In fact, before Assange crossed the US, the prosecutor declined to prosecute because of a lack of evidence.

The amount of bleating going on in here is amazing. Keep believing what your government tells you.
Click to expand...

I don't recall my congressman coming to my door saying "hey that Assange dude's guilty of crimes against humanity". I came to my conclusion from reading from many different sources and hearing about it all the time in the news.

Why should Sweden make the guarantee? Why should Sweden make deals with an alleged rapist who wouldn't show up in court? Next you'll insist that all alleged criminals should demand deals with the courts before showing up.

For all Sweden knows, Assange may have killed people to get information, but oops! They can't go back on their words and they must protect Assange because they made a deal before knowing the facts! No. They cannot make deals like that.
 
Azhar said:
I don't recall my congressman coming to my door saying "hey that Assange dude's guilty of crimes against humanity". I came to my conclusion from reading from many different sources and hearing about it all the time in the news.

Why should Sweden make the guarantee? Why should Sweden make deals with an alleged rapist who wouldn't show up in court? Next you'll insist that all alleged criminals should demand deals with the courts before showing up.

For all Sweden knows, Assange may have killed people to get information, but oops! They can't go back on their words and they must protect Assange because they made a deal before knowing the facts! No. They cannot make deals like that.
Click to expand...

And you still believe that the rape charges are actually legitimate and not a CIA plot.

Killing Assange directly would make him a martyr so they chose to discredit him instead. This is standard operating practice and it is something that the US has done numerous times before.
 
damicatz said:
And you still believe that the rape charges are actually legitimate and not a CIA plot.

Killing Assange directly would make him a martyr so they chose to discredit him instead. This is standard operating practice and it is something that the US has done numerous times before.
Click to expand...

I already told you, I will reserve judgement about the CIA being involved until we see solid proof. Nobody has been able to show any proof. You don't even know. Until there's solid evidence that the ladies are in the employ of the CIA, it's pure conspiracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top