Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Mobile phone access? (Score 1) 409

No, I don't - no international treaty affords sovereign territory status to a diplomatic mission. You made an unfounded assumption and was called on it.

And in case you want it said outright, no the UK doesn't afford diplomatic missions any additional considerations about sovereign territory rights either.

Comment Re:Mobile phone access? (Score 1) 409

You do realise that that document no where says that an embassy is considered a sovereign territory, right? Article 22 of that document does lay out the protections that the premises secured for the mission enjoys, including against search, entry etc but that document never assigns sovereign territory status to those premises.

So, the document you refer to does not back your claim - it is still a myth that embassies are sovereign territory.

Comment Re:Mobile phone access? (Score 5, Informative) 409

He isn't in Ecuador, he's in a flat in London - whether the Ecuadorian Embassy allow him an alternative method of access is debatable at this point, they don't have to allow him the use of a mobile phone or his own line (the issue seems to be with with his actions, not with the fact that they are being done over an Ecuadorian-linked internet connection) and they can ask him to leave if he has an issue with that.

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 1) 474

I do keep up - the Swedes agreeing to interview him (by the way, they agreed that at the start of the year - and then Ecuador blocked it) to shut people like you up, so you cant use that stupid argument. The process to charge Assange was started a couple of years ago, when he was arrested in absentia - this interview at the embassy won't change a single thing, the Swedes aren't expecting it to come to anything.

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 1) 474

And yet again you miss the point - I'm beginning to think on purpose.

The public reason Assange doesnt want to go to Sweden is because he fears an onward extradition to the US.

And yet he didn't seem to have the same fear while being within the UK's jurisdiction. He was quite willing to live here, use the legal system, stay at a UK address, and even surrender himself briefly to a UK prison until bail was arranged. He didn't seem to fear extradition to the US then - even though its as easy to extradite to the US from the UK as it is from Sweden.

At any point between Assange arriving in the UK and fleeing to the embassy, the US could have filed for extradition - but they didn't, and Assange was free to use the English legal system for 18 months and live in the UK.

The only time he started to fear extradition to Sweden was when it became a certainty - he doesnt want to go to Sweden to face the accusations against him. The US extradition aspect is nothing but bullshit he enjoys feeding to his supporters to divert them from the fact that he simply doesn't want to go to court in Sweden.

Is that clear enough for you? You have tangentially skirted the issue in each reply now, posting a reply that isn't quite a reply, just more pro-Assange bullshit. If Assange truly feared extradition to the US, he would never have come to the UK in the first place. And yet he came - to a country that very famously has a relationship that is called the "special relationship" with the country he purportedly is terrified about being extradited to. Is he just plain stupid? Was he too engrossed in a good book that day? Or is his excuse simply that, a shockly shite excuse?

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 1) 474

And you *still* miss the point!

Assange didnt give a fuck about the ability for the UK to (just as easily as Sweden) extradite him to the US in the significant time between him arriving in the UK and him absconding UK bail to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

So how about you take your nose out from between Assanges ass cheeks and get a grip on what is actually being discussed, because you don't seem to be understanding basic concepts in this thread.

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 1) 474

To be extradited to the US from the UK, Assange didn't have to have committed a crime in the UK, he simply has to be extradited under the concept of dual criminality - and yes, receiving and publishing classified information does indeed breach several UK statutes which are the equivalent of US laws.

As for the repeated crap about being interviewed within the Embassy, see my other post on that topic - the intention of the prosecutor is to charge him, and under the Swedish criminal legal process, he has to be questioned before he can be charged. So there is no point in interviewing him at his leisure within the embassy, because he cannot be forced to leave by the Swedish prosecutor.

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 1) 474

Oh yay, some one who didn't take note of the very example I posted in my original post in this thread - the one where someone who did nothing illegal in the UK was extradited to the US. I even linked to the very story here on Slashdot. This has been done several times.

Assange could easily be extradited to the US under that same treaty, without having done anything illegal in the UK.

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 1, Insightful) 474

A few points about your post...

investigation into the rape (Sweden's legal interpretation of the term) allegations

This seems to be a common fallacy about the Assange story - that the Swedish allegations wouldnt be valid in any other country.

Not just Swedens legal interpretation - under UK law, unless specifically excluded by treaty, there has to be "dual criminality" involved in the extradition charges for the warrant to be valid in the UK. At every stage of Assanges extradition hearings, each judge found the charges to meet the dual criminality requirement in full - what the Swedes called "rape" is also rape in the UK under UK law.

So its not just Swedens legal interpretation of the term, its the British legal interpretation of the term as well. You can go and read any of the extradition judgements against him, they all affirm this decision.

During that time, there have been repeated requests for the Swedish prosecutor to question him in the embassy as a guest of the Ecuadorians. She refused every single one and never gave a reason why, something that got her censured by her own people for basically fucking around over what, on the face of it, was a simple and straightforward case.

Also what seems to be ignored is the following:

1. Assange has been "arrested in absence" and under Swedish law cannot be charged before being interviewed. The prosecutor has repeatedly stated that the intention is to charge Assange, which is why he hasn't been interviewed in the Ecuadorian Embassy - it wouldn't achieve the goal that the prosecutor has.

2. There was a scheduled meeting between him and the prosecutor that Assange failed to return to Sweden for - it was at this interview that Assange was to be arrested and formally charged by the prosecutor. The failure to attend this meeting triggered the EAW application.

3. Why should any prosecutor interview a suspect on the suspects terms?

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 1, Interesting) 474

And what does that have anything to do with anything? Or are you forgetting that Assange voluntarily came to the UK and spent more than a year living under bail conditions in the UK while he fought the European Arrest Warrant against him? He was even in a British prison for a time.

Where was his fear about being extradited from the UK directly to the US?

In short, Assange didn't give one shit about how easy it was to be extradited from the UK to the US, despite it being demonstrably easier than from Sweden. Until it became something he could use to rally supporters that is...

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 2) 474


They are the ones claiming this is a "state action", and lets not forget that Assange and his group has form for outrageous claims - such as that when he was on bail in the UK, someone set up spy cameras outside the bail address, only for those cameras to be proven to predate Assange and also be nothing more than sensors for speed signs...

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss