It appears that the livestreaming site bambuser.com is down after a British fellow started streaming from outside the embassy and it was picked up by wikileaks on twitter:

http://twitter.com/alburyj http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj

What appears to be the text of the communication:

http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/201...

but not all of the subpoenas are secret, certainly is it rare for them to include NSLs (as Appelbaum has indicated the FBI hinted) and rarely if never are the dockets themselves sealed (as Appelbaum's lawyer is currently fighting)

To receive bail, you must pledge to return to court and be bound by its decisions. Assange broke his pledge when the court ruled against him.

You can choose asylum or you can choose to let the court decide. Trying to get the best of both worlds is mere gamesmanship and lacks any pretense at integrity.

This is why, for example, Roman Polanski's lawyers have been refused a hearing on his matter in the US. You have to choose between being a fugitive or being tried in court. You don't get to say "I'd like the Court to find me innocent before I stop being a fugitive."

I agree that it isn't sensible necessarily, but I also don't blame him for believing it may happen. The US has taken a surprisingly cavalier attitude to the rights of citizens and foreign nationals as of late.

Because that’s how it’s done in Sweden. He will only be charged after questioning.

Well then, if that was the case then Assange could just as well peacefully with the rest of the Ecuadorian delegation.

Don't forget that Assange is not and asylum "seeker" anymore, but that he has in fact been granted asylum. In other words, under international law, he is and Ecuadorian Citizen and unless Britain decides to transgress International Law and effectively declare war on Ecuador, no amount of sabre rattling will amount to anything at all.

jere is suggesting that it led to Iraq declaring war on Iran, as mentioned here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis#Aftermath

That was bad and you should feel bad.

But damnit, I giggled like an idiot.

Swedish law says that Assange can very well be interviewed over video link, police station and embassy (Even Ecuador offered). Despite this, the Swedish prosecutor is adamant that he should be on Swedish soil to be questioned.

If they did charge him at Ecuadorian embassy and then he refuses to leave, Ecuador would feel a lot more pressure and Assange would lose a lot of support. But now that it's clear that the Swedish prosecutor's blatant disregard for immediately interviewing him in favour of him being disadvantage in Sweden, there's even more support for Assange and Ecuador.

You seem confused. At one point you claim that this is about helping the women who are Swedish citizens and trying to question Assange so they can charge him with rape or figure out what happened. Have we agreed that in the previous comment you seems to be concerned and think the Swedish government is also concerned about these women?

> These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this.

and

> not beyond the realms of possibility, is that these women are genuinely making these accusations.

Those statements seem to support that, wouldn't you say?

However, when presented with the question of why didn't they just come in and questioned him after being invited and granted access you reply with

> Sweden is well within their rights to refuse that offer.

So they are just dragging their feet refusing the offer. Is it because they don't like British food or is the travel too grueling. Remember, they are spending all this effort and time supposedly because they deeply care about the fate of these two women.

The next step in the process is the questioning and then after being invited to question him to move the process along they refuse.

You'll have to forgive everyone if they don't quite believe the official reasons. To me it sounds fishy for example.

> Assange in the embassy and decided they wanted to charge him he would just walk out happily?

It doesn't matter what happens then. They identified a next step in the process and they claim they cannot accomplish it. While it has been clear that they can.

Sweden has the option, under their law, to interview someone over a video link, and it does the job just as well. Edit: They also have permission to come to the UK and interview him there.

They have been offered many times over by now, but have refused. Its refusal is probably going to cause a major diplomatic incident between two different sovereign nations that has the potential to violate some serious stuff.

Does any of this sound, if not normal, even remotely reasonable to you?

If the prosecutor had any real interest in seeing justice for these women any time soon, he would have done said interview months and months and months ago. Instead, if Julian Assange is guilty, then it's been an unnecessarily long drawn out process for the victims. Instead, the prosecutor is saying by this that he has no real interest in the case, but is just trying to get Julian Assange to Sweden, for easier extradition to the US. It's pretty known, through The Pirate Bay not least of all, that the Swedish justice system is at least a bit under the control of the US. Not unlike New Zealand's.

> if they did interview Assange in the embassy and decided they wanted to charge him he would just walk out happily?

How does that matter at this stage? Let's assume that Sweden does find him guilty, and it's pretty likely that they will (guilty or innocent)... Julian Assange will lose at least a bit of support once he is a convicted criminal, so there's a win for the prosecutor over the current situation there too.

Edit: Furthermore, they sent a letter, which says "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy."

The only way that this can happen is by invoking the "Under National Security" clause of said act. If Julian Assange is arrested in the embassy, then the UK must consider him a national security risk for this arrest to be valid under UK law. If that happens, it's a very, very serious bending, if not breaking, of the law.

Edit 2: And lastly, Julian Assange presented himself to the Swedish authorities before, in Sweden, for questioning. But they decided that they weren't going to press charges. That was on the 30th of August 2010, almost two years ago. I quote from Wikipedia: "On 1 September 2010, Swedish Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations. On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden. On 18 October 2010, his request was denied. He left Sweden on 27 September 2010. The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest."

They "just want to have a chat."

Maybe the clue is in the BBC story?

"Throughout this process have we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," the spokesman said."

Perhaps Sweden has fewer safeguards built into its extradition laws?

What happens if the US has already secretly convicted and sentenced Assange in his absence? Maybe even the death sentence? It might be the case that the UK's extradition laws with "extensive human rights safeguards" would prevent extradition to the US, but Sweden's laws wouldn't. Extradition to Sweden is a way for the UK to step around their own human rights laws.

Because he wasn't so afraid until he was brought in for questioning about rapes that neither of the alleged victims had actually filed claims about, only to be let go, just for another prosecutor to swoop in and reopen the case and try to get him to come back.

It might be total paranoia on his end, but he does certainly have reason to wonder what suddenly changed that made things go from a situation where one prosecutor closed the case stating that there was nothing that indicated a crime had taken place, to an entirely unrelated prosecutor from a different district deciding it was suddenly urgent to get him back into the country and then repeatedly escalating matters.

In fact, to the point where said prosecutor has now been faced with a formal complaint about judicial misconduct from a third party (two Swedish journalists) over her handling of this case.

Is that even a real question? Obviously he wasn't scared in the first place.

That's a biased source being discussed there, along with some wishful and imaginative thinking about what various interpol notices indicate.

It is the old, "I do not know this person, but I intensely dislike them as a person. I feel this has great relevance to all legal matters concerning this person" routine. It it commonly seen in discussions about Assange and Dotcom.

Sexual assualt charges have ludicrously low conviction rates (rapes especially), they are usually a he said, she said affair unless there's a significant degree of violence. Going down a peso route would be a lot easier, lower burden of proof... And evidence that can be fabricated without bringing a victim or witness to court.

Secondly, if the us wanted assagne they'd have him, shifting to Ecuador is probably a lot less safe than hanging around an EU country IMO

Thirdly, he had his chance to go back to Sweden, he ran. He had his chance in the uk, he ran. He's not showing him self to be of good character if the acts of abuse of process he claims to stand against are being carried out by himself

Guilty or not, he's got questions to ask. Running away isn't going to make his issues disappear

And lets not forget, sexual assault is a serious allegation, and if you had any sense about you, someone lying about using protection would really piss you off. Apart from the fact it means putting a woman at risk of having to look after a brat for 18 years plus incubation, there's also the risk of disease, complication through pregnancy and common flipping curtosey.

Sweden has participated in illegal rendition with the US (and admitted as much). It is naive to assume that if they were prepared to violate their own laws in order to bend over for US interests, that they will somehow worry all that much about following extradition procedures for Assange.

It also means the lack of public charges (the repeated claims is that there might be a secret grand jury indictment), nor a lack of a public extradition request is pretty much irrelevant.

It's not like Sweden or the US announced in advance they planned to illegally take a couple of Egyptians from Sweden and hand them over to Egyptian authorities for torture. But they did.

Incidentally, this is a good reason for Assange to prefer to be in the UK vs. Sweden - the UK seems less inclined to violate their own laws in this manner.

I'm not sure I believe this is part of a plot to get him to the US either, but I also think that given the weakness of the actual accusations from the female "plaintiffs" (perhaps not the best word) it seems unusual how bold some parties are being in trying to apprehend Assange. Calling him the "scum of earth" also doesn't help anybody seem impartial.

Perhaps they treat cases at the center of an international media spotlight a bit differently.

Which is of course a highly suspect claim to make, since both Sweden and the UK do not extradite for crimes that are subject to the death penalty.

The Libyan case doesn't really apply - the suspected gunman was a diplomat and a Libyan national and there's a whole extra set of legal issues involved that don't apply to someone seeking asylum in an embassy for a non-political crime.

There's no current legal process against Assange in his home country.

There's what you say and what you do. I wouldn't be surprised if they called it an act of war. However, a violent response is highly unlikely.

Fact: he has not been accused of rape. He has not been charged with rape. There is no trial. There are no charges. And there are no witnesses, and no physical evidence.

And if you read up on the details of the story, and the context, it's very fishy. It's at best a case of he-said vs she-said --- arguably one of the perfect ways to smear someone's reputation and cause them legal and financial hassle, without having to meet the minimum legal standards to convict someone of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Men and women have sex ALL the time, 24/7, all across the world, in all sorts of complex ways, variations, situations, and very often without condoms. It's also a fact that a large percentage of women like men to be dominant with them and it arouses them.

Given all these facts, and this cultural context, it's hard to know exactly what happened behind closed doors in these incidents, and before the legal system ruins a man's life they need to be damn sure they're doing the right thing. From just what's known publicly so far this case looks so flaky and muddled and suspicious that a reasonable person could easily say those standards aren't met here.

That's a nice abstract argument. The facts are otherwise.

If the US shows up with a video of Assange killing someone it will have been made on a Hollywood renderfarm.

We know that because we know that the US is bent on hunting Assange down for political reasons and have set up a secret Grand Jury for this purpose.

When the law says one thing and justice says another, the customary thing to do is to push the law towards justice, not the victim of injustice towards the law.

I believe that's incorrect. Manning wasn't talked into putting himself in the brick. Well not literally: he bragged about what he had done to someone on an internet chat. That someone was a convicted hacker that gave him up to law enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Chats_with_Adri...

That's some good propaganda there. BTW, I don't know if it's healthy to fantasize about punching people just based on how they look.

There are no charges yet either.

We're deep into "if you repeat it often enough people will believe it's true" territory.

> The other alleged victim claims that she...woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent and without a condom.

Emphasis added. Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p...

Please note that "having sex with [someone] without [their] consent" is the definition of rape.

Do the Chinese who might seek asylum also wait until the Court rules against them?

He was arrested, and his extradition was ordered. Then he sought asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy. That's what this is about.

Yes. Obama ran on change but when he met the entrenched interests of executive branch Washington, he quickly refashioned himself into George Dubya Bush's third term. His civil rights policy, technology policy, tax policy, financial regulatory policy, and many others confirm it.

The only major difference is that Obama always really wanted to catch Bin Laden and Bush -- openly -- didn't care. Now that that's over, he seems to want to run for Bush's fourth term.

Maybe they are misguided. But the publicity of this whole thing makes their (possible?) overreaction completely explainable without any conspiracy theories.

   There is little doubt it was the Russians

There is a lot of doubt.

The most obvious suspect is oligarch Boris Berezovsky, a London refugee from Russia, accused of embezzlement at home, who is waging a fierce propaganda war with the current Russian government.

http://www.rt.com/news/berezovsky-litvinenko-murder-allegati...

Let's not jump to conclusions here. The US hasn't done anything to Assange.

I think you've misread me. I'm not saying that it's ridiculous, so there's no reason to fear it happening; I'm saying it's ridiculous, and I would be entirely unsurprised if it happened anyway.

Apparently something is missing here. How did he get from being in custody to seeking asylum in an embassy? Somewhere along the way he was not in custody. Why was he not in the custody of law enforcement? They had no reason to hold him? He was out on bail? If he was out on bail, lost an appeal, why didn't he return to custody?

If they didn't want him walking around (where he could claim asylum in an embassy) then he should have been in custody. If he wasn't in custody, there must have been a reason he wasn't. Sounds to me like they (law enforcement) screwed up and they're now trying to blame an Ecuadorian ambassador.

From Wikipedia:

As of the bill's passage into law in 2010, CBO estimated the legislation would reduce the deficit by $143 billion[185] over the first decade, but half of that was due to expected premiums for the C.L.A.S.S. Act, which has since been abandoned.[186] Although the CBO generally does not provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period (because of the great degree of uncertainty involved in the data) it decided to do so in this case at the request of lawmakers, and estimated a second decade deficit reduction of $1.2 trillion.[180][187] ...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordab...

Saying that your explanation doesn't make sense is also not a conspiracy theory.

From an article about the charges [1] "...one of the women alleges that Assange behaved threateningly with her and held her down to prevent her from reaching for a condom. He did end up wearing one, but she thinks he ripped it and deliberately ejaculated inside her. He also later rubbed up against her with his pants off, she says, against her will. The other alleged victim claims that she struggled with Assange over the condom all night, had consensual sex with him when he finally put it on, and then woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent and without a condom. In my personal and professional experience with rape, these kinds of allegations are both credible and common."

These are definitely allegations of sexual assault, and the described behavior treads perilously close to what everyone would agree is rape.

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p...

> and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape, certainly

If one was a misogynist who thought women lost their basic human rights as soon as their clothes were off, one could certainly argue that.

Note that the arrest warrant does explicitly claim rape, though it does so in a very vague manner.

Someone pointed out at the Guardian's site last night that the warrant presented to the UK courts actually is worded in a very contorted way to claim an allegation on rape on the basis that one of the women was in a "state of sleep" without actually stating whether she was asleep or half asleep and whether or not there's a claim that she was not consenting or unable to consent.

If she was claiming to be "half asleep", which is what has been stated previously in the Swedish press, and aware of what was going on, she might very well have been in position to legally consent, and there's to my knowledge not been a claim in Sweden that this in itself is what gave rise to rape claims, but that the rape claim was predicated on him not using a condom in that instance, despite her previous insistence that he had to.

It could be just an innocent bad wording, but given the rest of this case, and how this curiously misrepresents the claims presented in Sweden, this does seem rather odd. It would have been trivial to precisely express the claims presented in Sweden in unambiguous terms in far fewer words than they used.

I agree, he did break promises, many of them due to encountering opposition he couldn't muster the political power/courage/recklessness to surmount. You can see a more in depth analysis here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Still, I want to say 3 things:

1) After getting into office, he actually addressed the fiscal and economic crisis that was developing, and we can definitely say that today the charts are a little higher than in 2008. That took some re-prioritizing.

2) All politicians promise something. Just hear Romney's promises: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlnaYOv0DZY ... so believing everyone's promises is silly. For me it's more about how competent the guy is to actually achieve/maintain the stuff I think we need as a country. And even so, I don't think the president can do that much these days. You should worry about the Senate, they have the lowest approval rating ever I think.

3) He has made some major reforms, the medical reform is a big one, perhaps one day he may tackle immigration reform. Also the JOBS act is bringing about some much-needed financial reform, but I can't give all the credit to Obama on this one. Actually here is what I think about the direction this country is headed: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=108

But he's not being shielded from any charges. The extradition request is for questioning; he simply hasn't been charged yet.

It's his story that, upon extradition to Sweden, the Swedes will turn around and hand him over to the US to be Gitmo'ed with extreme prejudice, but that's all it is thus far: his story. That said, it's certainly plausible; he's mightily pissed off the US government, which does seem to have a habit — particularly lately — of treating people that embarrass it rather less than gently. It would also explain how het-up the Swedes are to have him extradited, and the fact that Britain is willing to violate the Ecuadorian embassy (which, FTR, is not sovereign territory) in order to retrieve him. But idiotically zealous investigation of alleged rape (let alone lesser charges) isn't exactly unheard of, either.

Either way, however much good Assange has done the world by exposing the stuff he and WikiLeaks have exposed, he is an attention-whore, and his motives are pretty broadly suspect. Personally, I'd vastly prefer he not be subject to "extraordinary rendition" — not because of anything he's done, but because I don't think anyone should be shipped off to countries where they "interrogate" with rectally inserted broken beer bottles (to reference just one of the many stories that have bubbled up from that kind of thing). But that's just me.

> We don't have an international incident every time somebody refuses to wear a condom.

bingo. that's why, in part, this is clearly about something other than the alleged sex incidents. it's pretty obviously about Wikileaks, trying to impede/stop/punish it and him.

And neither is Assange, on both counts.

When the hypothetical is "will I be killed" then it makes sense to try and work it out in hypothetical rather than ignore it until it becomes, one way or the other, reality.

As someone else already replied to this. When it comes to strategic decision (I call them decision that you can't reverse, say being killed, or imprisoned for life) hypotheticals and gut instincts are pretty good.

You can't conduct an experiment to figure things out, if you can't then come back and conduct more experiment because the first one killed you.

The prosecutor said there was no case of rape to follow, but did concede that there was a case of sexual assault. The rape case was reopened and the sexual assault case remained opened

> If the prosecutor has no case, though, Assange has nothing to fear going to Sweden. Even if the US could extradite him, they could do it from the UK just as easily as from Sweden

I disagree. If the prosecutor has no case, Assange has - rightfully or not - every reason to wonder why they are pursuing him in this manner, and every reason to then worry about what the underlying motivation is. He might be more paranoid than justified in how he interprets it, but if I was in his shoes and a prosecutor acted the way the Swedish prosecutor has in this case, and I knew I hadn't done anything wrong (or thought I hadn't), I'd be worried something was up and be far more concerned about that than a potential Swedish jail sentence.

If the prosecutor actually has a case, Assange presumably knows he did what is claimed, and in that case he would have more reason to believe early on that his "worst case" scenario might be a very short stay in a low security, comfortable Swedish prison - the crimes he is wanted for questioning about have very short sentencing guidelines in Sweden.

In terms of extradition, if I was him I'd not be so concerned about legal, above board extradition. I would be concerned about the fact that Sweden has admitted to, and have been censured by the UN for, having violated their own laws as well as international treaties to participate in rendition arranged by the US of two Egyptians to Egypt where they were subsequently tortured. If they were willing to do that with some relatively low level targets, at the behest of the US, then there is every reason to worry they'd be willing to be "flexible" about giving Assange to the US.

The odds of them taking the political fallout from that in this case might be small, but then this is not just about what Assange might objectively have reason to fear - a lot of it boils down to what his actual, subjective fears are. I see little reason to doubt that Assange personally genuinely fear the US is after him and that he believes he is important enough that given its past history with rendition that Sweden might very well be easy to push into handing over him too.

He might very well make irrational choices because of that fear without there being any implication of guilt behind those choices.

Then again, he might also be guilty and just not want to face it.

Point is, this isn't nearly as clear cut as some would like to think it is.

The thing is, I don't even like the guy. Wikileaks is fantastic, but we can credit him for his involvement with that without whitewashing the person.

Even if I were to only accept the parts his own lawyers have conceded, the statements do paint the picture of someone who is quite a bit of an asshole. Maybe he is a bit of a misogynist, though I think it's more likely he is "just" a bit narcissistic and didn't really take anyones feelings into account. Add in some paranoia - even if people are after him, he comes across as believing they care more than I think they do.

I just think there are a lot of things about this case that are fishy to the point where there's good reason to be extremely suspicious about the motivations of some of the people involved, even if one discounts the idea of US involvement. He might very well be guilty for what I know, but that still doesn't mean there's nothing weird going on with how the whole situation has been handled.

> The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent

I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.

> It outright justifies rape.

I never said that. Quote me where I said that. Again, you can't.

I'm very careful with my wording. You are probably falling into the trap of getting emotional about something that wasn't said, something that lives only in your own mind. Unfortunately this is one of those topics that never fails to draw people out who commit that kind of mistake.

Also, I'd love to meet you sometime for a friendly coffee somewhere. Always good to meet fellow HN'ers, and as a bonus we can clear up any misunderstandings.

Criticizing people for being impolite when you're all but justifying raping women isn't exactly arguing from a moral high ground.

In context, the notion put forward is this: it's arguably not rape to have unprotected sex with someone who refuses consent to have unprotected sex with you, as long as you've already got them naked and in bed with you. I'm not sure you can classify that notion as a harmless technicality. And if you leave out the part about the woman refusing consent, then it's a non-sequitur anyway.

> You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says.

BINGO. thank you. there are other intelligent, sane people on this website.

Evidently, they have to formally question Assange before filing charges. They'd rather have him in custody in Sweden before they do that. Isn't it pretty well established by Assange's own actions that Assange would be a massive flight risk? The Swedish aren't the ones acting irrationally.

Conspiracy theories are usually self-reinforcing that way.

I am going to have to agree with Steko here. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4389438)

That is not a justification of rape. You could argue that that it conveys some sort of implied approval (and I am likely to disagree there, unless you can come up with a better supporting argument than namecalling) but it is not a justification.

Now, before you decide to accuse me of justifying rape as well, allow me to state this explicitly: I do not approve of the actions as portrayed in that narrative.

> Phil, these are very serious allegations you are claiming as fact.

Not at all. I simply think the Swedish justice system should fully process these accusations, and whatever outcome or verdict is reached will simply be whatever it is.

I am dismayed that in many rape cases, it's easier to perform a character assassination on the alleged victims and intimidate them from testifying. I'm worried that people with some sort of political sympathy for Assange due to his work with WikiLeaks will engage in this kind of character assassination and intimidation. Fortunately, the Swedish prosecutors seem to have collected depositions already, so Assange's alleged victims might not have to go through the agony of reliving their experiences on a worldwide stage only to be called liars or sluts, or to be accused of being paid off by the CIA.

Still, there's a very high chance that even if Assange is guilty, he will not be convicted. I simply hope that if he is guilty, he is convicted, and that if he is innocent, that he is not only acquitted but fully exonerated. No innocent man deserves that kind of cloud over his head.

Unfortunately, Assange isn't really helping matters.

> For two full years now, in multiple discussions about Mr. Assange, you have consistently participated in threads...

You seem to be keeping very close tabs on my activity on HN. If you had an email address in your profile I would ask you about this privately, but you seem determined to retain your pseudonymity, so I will ask publicly. Why exactly are you so interested in my comments in particular?