Two years ago, one of the most controversial figures of the age of cyberspace appeared on the doorstep of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. On the verge of losing an appeal in the British courts that could open the door to his extradition to Sweden and then later, the United States, where a secret Grand Jury had convened to indict him, Julian Assange sought refuge in Ecuador’s modest Embassy flat. During the following two months, the Ecuadorian government studiously reviewed his case, calling in experts to discuss and debate the duties and risks Ecuador faced in granting the asylum petition.

The Ecuadorian government has reiterated its support for Assange and has made clear that their country is bound by international law to maintain his asylum. As Minister Patiño has affirmed, there is no return policy on asylees who are still subjected to exactly the same conditions as when the asylum was granted. The persecution remains, and there are still no charges of any kind against Assange. Ecuador, a small nation of 15 million inhabitants with bananas and beautiful roses as its main exports, has remained defiant in the face of pressure from England, Sweden and their biggest ally, the United States.

Despite his confinement and separation from close friends and family, his spirits remain high, as was apparent during the visit with Minister Patiño, and he is optimistic about changes to a law in the UK that potentially could lead to his freedom.

Known within political circles as the “Assange Act”, an amendment was made in early 2014 to the Extradition Act 2003 in the British parliament. Resulting from discontent and discomfort over the legal limbo Julian has been in for the past four years – even two years before receiving asylum from Ecuador, Assange had been on house arrest in England, pending potential extradition to Sweden –  several British MPs began debating a substantive change to the law that would impede a future Assange situation from happening to someone else.

The amendment is included in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (not the most socially-friendly name), in Chapter 12, Part 12. It specifically states that “Extradition is barred if no prosecution decision has been made in the requesting territory”, as in Assange’s situation. If the country requesting extradition has not yet charged or decided to try the individual being requested, than the United Kingdom will not extradite. This is exactly the case of Julian Assange. The Swedish prosecution has not decided to try him yet or even formally charge him, and the extradition request is merely based on the desire to “question” him about certain allegations he may or may not be involved in.

Foreign Minister Patiño has stated previously that Ecuador could bring the case before the International Court of Justice in the Hague, or the United Nations. The affronts to Ecuador’s sovereignty, the failure to recognize the asylum granted to Julian Assange and the refusal to provide him with safe passage to Ecuadorian territory are all violations of international law. Julian’s human rights are also affected. The inability to fully enjoy his right to asylum and the confining conditions he has been forced to remain in for two years, under threat by arrest by British authorities right outside the Embassy doors and windows, have subjected him to cruel and inhumane punishment.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/25/a-defiant-ecuador-seeks-solutions-in-assa...

We all know who Julian Assange is. We know of him because he set about destroying confidentiality. We also know who Lee Oswald was, we know of him because he destroyed a world leader. So we have to be careful when deciding who is good and who is about making a name for themselves when it come to the 'destructive' approach.

Is Assange's approach genuine? Or is he about becoming someone?

I mean, for someone like Oswald to make it doing something productive instead, in the very competitive environment that was then, would have been difficult. He might have for example declared himself a capitalist, which let's face it wouldn't have made him stand out much in the USA, the land of capitalism. He then would have had to fight his way up, defeating other capitalists before finally winning. Instead he chose to become a communist and defect, that failing to achieve the recognition he believed he deserved, he tried to assassinate a political figure, that failed, he then made his mark by successfully shooting JFK. But Oswald just didn't count on another attention seeker (Jack Ruby) cutting short his time in the spotlight.   

Assange maybe not counting on his own elicit actions interfering with his exposure to the limelight? Looks like he was wrong. The real test would be if he were to hand himself in.

Shakey wrote on Aug 27^th, 2014 at 3:48pm:


Hopefully some one will shoot him when he steps foot out side....

Julian Assange is desperately wanted by the U.S. who are still furious with him for tipping the bucket on them. Assange if he leaves his refuge will soon be in the hands of the U.S.A. They have an extradition treaty with Sweden and as soon as the trumped up charges against him are exposed the U.S. will pounce, which is the purpose of the exercise right from the word go.