Simple solution.
He could walk out and find somewhere with free WiFi.
Supporters of WikiLeaks are sounding alarms as founder Julian Assange has had his internet access cut to his Ecuadorian embassy broom cupboard. The embassy – based in Knightsbridge, London – said it revoked Assange's broadband connection after he violated a promise not to say, or tweet, anything that would harm the South …
"Someone replied to Kim Dotcom's original tweet and said that he'd configured his phone as a hotspot. Apparently Julian should look for an SSID of "cupboard boy" and a password of "hahahaha"
Made me laugh, anyway."
I would have gone with an SSID of "pasty-faced asshole" and a password of "yes,you." Seems much more intuitive.
"He could walk out and find somewhere with free WiFi."
According to press reports he has a mobile phone. No doubt he can use that for WiFi. This is likely Ecuador just pretending to care so as to maintain good UK relations. Or if he goes on the balcony likely there are public services available.
"he could end up being extradited to the United States, where he fears facing the death penalty "
Not from anywhere in the EU he doesn't. Extradition is not allowed if there is any prospect of capital punishment by the human rights act.
The UK should just end this mess by guaranteeing safe passage - say by recognising him as an Ecuadorian diplomat after he faces court for skipping bail. He would probably only get a suspended sentence anyway. According to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, jail sentences should only be used for skipping bail when there are serious aggravating factors.
@Alladin - you're correct that the arrest warrant for the rape charge was dropped in May last year with the Swedish prosecutor saying: "If he were to return to Sweden before the statute of limitation on this case expires in August 2020, the preliminary investigation could be resumed."
But I was referring to the allegations of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion, which hit the statue of limitation back in August 2015. Although less serious charges than rape, collapsing a criminal investigation into them still seems like a "serious aggravating factor" of his bail violation.
Nope.
Doesn't work that way...
At the time of the EAW, the investigation and potential charges were in effect. He hadn't been charged because of a quirk in Swedish law that doesn't allow him to be charged if he's not present.
So he would have faced the charges at the time of the EAW hearings and subsequent jumping bail.
In addition, he caused harm to the Brits in terms of their EU standing along with the additional costs of police time monitoring the Embassy.
So he would probably face the full force of the law on this one.
So he would probably face the full force of the law on this one.
Indeed. If this doesn't count as the most serious violation of bail conditions legally envisionable, then what does? there's no chance he's just getting a slap on the wrist for this - he's definitely going to do time and then he is definitely going to be deported.
The UK should just end this mess by guaranteeing safe passage
They have. Straight to the nearest court to explain why he skipped bail. That said, I am in no doubt they would help him in a plane back to the Sweden he was first proclaiming to be a bastion of freedom, which he seems to confuse with a place where he can do anything he damn well pleases, screw the consequences for others.
I'm betting UK Foreign Affairs is watching all of this with amusement. There are only two parties who can end this farce, one can't do for diplomatic loss of face, the other because he'd get arrested as soon as he sticks his greasy nose out of the door. The rest of the world can just laugh at this farce, except proper asylum seekers whose last resort has been abused for avoiding the law.
However, one observation: it is quite possible that the fears about the US may turn from a frankly fanciful fiction into fact: if Assange was complicit in helping Trump (and it's clear he has), he may get sucked into the Mueller enquiry as one of the stooges of Putin - at which point he may ultimately face the extradition demands he has been pretending to exist so far.
I can't wait.
"He would probably only get a suspended sentence anyway"
Possibly, but jumping bail is contempt of court and when apprehended results in immediate imprisonment until a court can be arranged. This could be almost immediately, but might take time.
"According to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, jail sentences should only be used for skipping bail when there are serious aggravating factors."
Going on the run in such a public fashion whilst constantly thumbing your nose at the government may well be considered "serious aggravating factors"
According to press reports he has a mobile phone. No doubt he can use that for WiFi. This is likely Ecuador just pretending to care so as to maintain good UK relations.
From the statement from Ecuador:-
"Assange’s behavior, through his messages on social media, has put our good relations with the United Kingdom and the rest of states in the European Union at risk"
Apparently his comments about Spains somewhat anti democratic treatment of Catelonia annoyed the Spanish somewhat. Bear in mind these are the same people who sent in riot police in to beat up people voting in Catelonia; chances are they were equally unrestrained when screaming at Ecuador about the resident of their embassy criticising them.
This probably has more to do with maintaining Spanish relations than UK relations.
Yeah the fear of the death penalty is way overblown.
At issue though is why? Posting the leaked files would be shielded to some degree due to the Ellsberg decision back in the 70's. Even without it... it would mean fines and some prison time at most.
Then you have the potential for espionage act. That would mean that Assange assisted Manning in the actual theft. Because Manning got off light... Assange would face at most some prison time.
And yes, its true that if the US wanted him, the Death Penalty would be off the table, not that its really an option in the first place.
With respect to the UK offering safe passage... When they are done with him for jumping bail, he's on a flight to Australia. End of story.
Most like he will not get a suspended sentence since he's cost the Brits a lot of money with extra security around the embassy.
Either way... Assange is in a world of fun when he gets to Australia. They can seize his passport and then he would have a harder time leaving the country. Assuming that the US doesn't request extradition of him from the Aussies first.
Under various treaties, etc. I'm sure they can toss him to the curb since he was granted asylum. He should though be conforming to common decency regarding his hosts.
Given the comments about his phone, WiFi, etc... this sounds like a publicity stunt to get attention.. again.
He never claimed asylum
He claimed refugee status,
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/979397620903813121
which says
"There has never been an asylum agreement between Mr. Assange and Ecuador. There is no legal framework to make such sn agreement. Assange went through the stardard refugee process then applied for naturaluzation as was his right after three years."
thing is, he doesn't meet ANY of the criteria for refugee status, which is why no-one recognised it.
I agree. But why does the UK have to put with this? Why not give the twat safe passage to, well, anywhere? I don't care where he goes. Send him back to Oz, let his country sort it out. Or Ecuador. Or Russia... I don't care, just get rid of him.
It would set a dangerous precedent to not charge him with bail jumping and simply deport him. Assange himself would also not agree to charges being dropped in exchange for deportation as that would A: Stop him being a self-aggrandizing toolbag claiming persecution and B: send him back to Australia who are considered far more likely than the UK or Sweden to give him to the Americans.
Also the first whisper of him cutting a deal to leave the embassy would almost certainly see Sweden reactivate the EAW for him and force the UK to send him there for questioning.
Because the UK can't be seen to let him go any more than Ecuador can be seen to kick him out the door to the waiting coppers.
I suspect in the next year or two there will be a deliberately botched attempt to smuggle him out, he'll do his six weeks for jumping bail and will then be allowed to leave unhindered as an irrelevance.
1) We can't let people get away with skipping bail. Providing him safe passage tells every criminal "just run to an embassy if you don't want to go to jail". And he wasn't even GOING to jail...
2) Nobody cares about the Sweden stuff unless and until he's out and Sweden bother to re-file paperwork for it. That'll be AFTER he stood in a UK court and (almost certainly) has gone to prison for contempt of court. Then we literally hand him over, because we're legally obliged to if they file the right paperwork again.
3) He's not really costing us anything (any more), but it's costing the Ecuadorians a fortune in lawyers alone, I imagine.
4) He's a great leverage in trade agreements. "Oh, so I see Mr Assange is still there, running from our legal system. And you... wanted what from us precisely?" <notes down scribble on a post-it> "Well, I'll be sure to look *right* into that."
Fact is, nobody wants him, but nobody wants him to thumb his nose at them either. It's only a matter of time / stupid tweets before Ecuador tire of him and come up with some innocent arrangement which happens to end with his arrest. Then we'll convict him, shut him up for six months, and let him go. Who to and where? Literally nobody cares. If the paperwork comes through and it's legit, we honour it. If it doesn't - well that will just be funny, to be honest.
In fact the best thing for him would be to try to escape, because at least something interesting would happen. And barely a week goes by that he doesn't try to make the news anyway. One slow news week and he'll be hopping down the fire escape or something.
The alternative? I can literally see him dying of old age in the embassy, because nobody else cares enough to do anything about it. He'll be one of those QI factettes ten years afterwards, and nobody will care.
Best Alan Davies impression: "So, this guy spent 20 years locked in an embassy, to avoid bail on an arrest that never happened... what a twat..."
Best Alan Davies impression: "So, this guy spent 20 years locked in an embassy, to avoid bail on an arrest that never happened... what a twat..."
And you'd be betting your life on that? Do you know what they do to people at CIA black sites?
The guy may be a bit of a twat, but he has helped get the truth out about war crimes conducted by several government.
War crimes of which the perpetrators are still up and about, laughing all the way to the bank.
If we wanted him dead, he would be, embassy or not. Considering one of the Special Collection Services's jobs is to break into embassies and they're quite good at it, he would have had two rounds in his head, throat or chest if we wanted to harm him. He's a nobody who only the delusionally paranoid give a shit about, especially after what he did to Chelsea Manning, and irrelevance is the one thing the little pasty fuck dreads more than anything.
If we wanted him dead, he would be, embassy or not
Sounds like a bit of American patriot crotch fondling....
Yeah, probably get away with it, but if it was botched, noticed (a lot of cameras in the UK), seriously bad blow-back with a lot of reputation damage to the perpetrating country.
"If we wanted him dead, he would be, embassy or not. Considering one of the Special Collection Services's jobs is to break into embassies and they're quite good at it,"
I don't care how good you think they are, or if they even exist. There's simply no way in hell the US, or even Trump personally, would order something like that in the heart of London At least not without asking Mr Potter for a loan of his "Cloak of Invisibility". Have you seen how many cameras there are?
Or do you think, for example, the Israeli Mossad would dare to attempt something similar in a foreign embassy in Washington DC and you'd be happy with that?
"And you'd be betting your life on that? Do you know what they do to people at CIA black sites?"
If I was in Assange's position? Yeah, I'd bet my life. Better than rotting in an embassy forever.
Additionally, nobody has even BOTHERED to try to suggest he would end up in the US at all, in any way, shape or form.
It's based on an unspoken assumption that the rule of law will be subverted to extract him without formal process in the view of the world's press for... well, let's be honest, some pretty worthless news item he once dug up that - as you might notice - nobody is really up in arms about. Certainly not any more. The "news" was small-fry stuff, it really was. It's not started a war or changed a political situation or made the public demand a review... nobody really cares about it. "The truth"? Well, it was pretty boring, to be honest. I would be expecting a million times worse among modern large governments.
So, yes, in his position, I'd bet my life. Of course, that doesn't generate anywhere near as much press, once people realise that what you SAY you're going to abducted for is pretty boring. I can point out a lot more war crimes that also go un-cared-about. Rather than fuss about a prat-in-a-box, let's fix the war-crimes happening, eh? Like, let's generate some actual disgust that they happened. Because... I'm looking around... and I see nothing.
And, to be honest, I could argue that Wikileaks put more innocent people at risk by doing what they did, how they did, without caring and instead fighting to get publicity. The fact that US forces kill innocents in a "warzone" (without a formal declaration of war, which is probably worse) is hardly even news. They've bombed hospitals and all kinds quite publicly.
Not saying it's right. Not saying I condone it. Not saying people shouldn't know. Not saying the perpetrators shouldn't face investigation and action.
But Assange? He's just a prat-in-a-box, and for self-inflicted reasons.
If anything, he has helped prove that if you DO know something, whatever you do never make it public. Unless you want to spend a paranoid eternity in an embassy (Assange), a prison (Manning), or being interrogated by Russia (Snowden). He has basically SCARED OFF anyone else ever following suit, for some pretty minor stuff that we already knew in principle, just lacking the specifics, and in doing so condemned himself when he could just have not skipped bail, cleared his name, and stayed the same kind of celebrity twat but with some integrity.
Must be why the people that actually worked on the releases (Assange doesn't do any of the grunt work, he just does press releases) have traveled to the US without incident for the last 5 years.
Or why if he was so worried about US extradition, he went from Sweden (doesn't extradite for political crimes) to the UK (express treaty). And if he was worried about 'black bag squads', he wouldn't have spent some 600 days walking the exact same rural route, at the same time every single day, to report to a rural police station as his bail conditions. Fixed route, fixed time, on foot, middle of nowhere, it's a snatch-squad DREAM. And yet this massive concern only raised its head after the Supreme Court threw out his final appeal - the point where he realised 'oh sh*t, I will have to go back to Sweden'.
Same with his run from Sweden. If you're told one afternoon that the appointment next morning with the prosecutor will have you arrested and charged, you'd leave the country. So where do you go for a month or two, when you're 60 days into a 90 day schengen visa, and have to go THAT NIGHT. UK's the only choice left - as a commonwealth citizen he can enter without a visa for 180 days. Anywhere else either wouldn't land in time (australia) if there were flights available, requires a visa, or would limit him to 30 days. As a benefit, UK speaks english, and has a markedly different legal system than Sweden.
If you were afraid of the US, you'd never set foot in the UK, you'd go elsewhere in schengen, and then head back to Australia. ESpecially as a month or two earlier you'd been bigging up how you were applying for Swedish residency because they don't extradite to the US. (and yes, it's happened. in 92 the US requested extradition of a US citizen who was in Sweden. That citizen was charged with espionage, mainly because he was the ONLY CIA officer to defect to the USSR. Bear in mind, the president was Bush sr, who was the former head of the CIA and vice president when the guy defected. Sweden still said no, and let him go.