General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums‘Assange won’t come’: Swedish MPs urge end to whistleblower case
Swedish MPs are calling on the prosecutors in the Julian Assange sexual assault case to travel to London and question the WikiLeaks founder at the Ecuadorian embassy, where he has been taking refuge since June 2012.
The members of the Swedish parliament say investigators should accept that Assange will not be leaving the embassy voluntarily.
“It is in the interest of everyone involved in this process that the prosecutor reaches a conclusion to either file charges or dismiss the case, and it is obvious that Assange will not come to Sweden,”
http://rt.com/news/assange-swedish-urge-prosecutors-672/
[IMG]
[/IMG]
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)What is the purpose of keeping Assange confined in the Ecuadorian Embassy forever?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)and is free to leave at any time
It is difficult to stay completely abreast of his paranoid-sounding rants, but he has repeatedly said he will not leave the embassy even if Sweden drops all charges against him
Perhaps the fact, that St Julian has managed to convert a story of several women, unhappy with how he treated them during a few one-night stands, into an elaborate international conspiracy theory, involving CIA honey-traps and sadistic radical Swedish feminists eager to have him tortured and killed on the other side of the Atlantic, with Quito's London embassy playing the role of St Julian'st Hole-in-the-Wall Last Stand safehouse, convinces him that this silly strategy is a good idea
But Ecuador will eventually tire of this. They've already sacked on ambassador to the UK for failure to "solve" this problem. And the bogus "safe-passage" document for Snowden, issuing out of Quito's LOndon embassy last year, didn't endear Assange to Ecuador's president
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)AGAIN that she did not accuse him of sexual assault, that the police forced this on her? Of course she has said this from the beginning, but the right wing mob that wanted to silence Wikileaks, which failed, in Sweden, the right wing rags over there that were in league with the operatives in the police dept, forced her into this situation.
THEY HAVE NO CASE. Everyone knew it even including those pretending they were so 'concerned' about sexual assault.
Good for the Swedish Parliament, clearly they are ashamed of their country's 'judicial' system for collaboring with the Wall St supporters who were furious with Wikileaks for exposing the Bank corruption in Iceland, way before a few people here ever heard of them.
They should be ashamed, their judicial system has now become the laughing stock of the world. Assange has won, the people have won against the Banks which is what this was all about.
Are you a supporter of Wall St or something? It's all falling apart, all the attempts to silence whistle blowers, they just can't do it.
Wikileaks released leaked documents regarding the TPP, documents our own Congress were refused access to.
Put it this way, Wikileaks and Assange are more popular around the world than our government is right now. And that is shameful.
I knew there would never be charges filed, said so many times, because they could not file charges when there was no case. The evidence was always there, Assange was not engaged in conspiracy theories. You didn't see the CIA document leaked by Assange PLANNING what to do about him, and settling on getting him involved 'in a sex scandal'. Poor babies, they didn't expect that no one would believe them. Except for Wall St groupies and a few other extremists.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)what you say, you say with great certainty
But when I attempt to research it, I often find it to be untrue
And, upon reporting back to you what I think I have learned, with supporting links, I unfortunately too often find your response is simply to reiterate with great certainty what you said before, without much connection to reality
I come here to learn how to think clearly and accurately about current events -- but I am afraid my conversations with you do not usually help me to do that
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)learn the facts of this case. Your statement in your previous comment, eg 'no one is forcing Assange to stay in the Embassy' is FALSE, it is disingenuous to claim that when someone believes they have been set up, as Assange does, by powerful forces who would do to him what was done to Chelsea Manning if they got their hands on him, he most certainly is not free to leave the protection of the Embassy.
That is the equivalent of saying that people who have sought asylum here are not being forced to stay here, they are free to go, right into the arms of people who are a threat to their safety and/or freedom.
I followed this story from way before Assange ended up in Sweden. I wrote about it on DU2 as it was happening, before the web was scrubbed, which we watched as it happened, of comments made by the woman who is the accuser. Comments that contradict her later claims.
If you think I am going to go back and do all that research again you are mistaken because you have shown a willingness to believe the 'official story' without bothering to do the research yourself, and it's not my job to try to change your mind, which I don't believe would happen anyway.
Obviously the Swedish parliamentarians who are asking that either the prosecutor go to London and do her job so they can get on with the case or drop it, KNOW the Prosecutor was lying when she claimed she could not interview him in London. THAT WAS A LIE and I am really pleased to see her finally called on it by her own government officials.
And if a prosecutor will lie about that, she will lie about everything else also.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)you're not the only one who's had that experience.
Sid
Cha
(298,021 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)in Mayfair!
They can move out and just leave Juli behind...!
Matariki
(18,775 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)To help you think more clearly and respond more cogently, you could paste my prior text into a wordprocessor and perform a global find/replace to convert all instances of "St Julian" to "Assange"
hack89
(39,171 posts)No one is keeping him confined.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)reusrename
(1,716 posts)If they can't take him into custody then they can't turn him over to the U.S. I don't see the purpose, unless it's really an attempt to try and end this whole charade somehow.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)whether to file charges or drop the matter.
hack89
(39,171 posts)this interview is merely the last step before he is arrested.
The Swedish legal system is different than ours - here people are indicted early in the process. In Sweden it happens at the end of the process.
reorg
(3,317 posts)But the investigation leaked onto the net and now anyone can read it and draw their own conclusions. And I believe that few people with any sense of evidentiary evaluation will see the case as something to not be closed. The women have been interrogated and there are no more steps to the investigation. It's highly unlikely that were Assange to be interrogated again, he'd say something that made it possible to bring the case to court. It is therefore incomprehensible what the prosecutor expects him to say. So the interrogation of Assange is completely unnecessary. The situation with Assange and the women is mostly about differences of opinion about the use of condoms. And that's not the type of dispute that's settled in our courts.
http://rixstep.com/1/20140112,00.shtml
hack89
(39,171 posts)The Swedish law experts that testified under oath in a British court also disagree with him.
And let's not overlook the fact that he has an active arrest warrant with his name on it so let's drop the nonsense that the Swede's don't want to arrest him.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)I thought it has always been a question of custody. Even if they were to drop the charges upon his return to Sweden, they could still take him into custody and rendition him to the U.S.
The issue never has been about his being charged, has it? It's about rendition. Right?
So what's the point, unless they are giving up on rendition.
hack89
(39,171 posts)something tells me he won't do that.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)I may be mistaken, but that's the way I think it stands.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Their judiciary is truly independent - no judge will consider themselves bound by some politician's promise. Which is how it should be.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)The point is, even if no charges are EVER filed against him, he can still be renditioned. It's a political act for the most part, and not necessarily a legal one. So if the judges in Sweden do have control over this, as you suggest, then they are more like politicians than lawyers since the law expressly forbids it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)It is delusional to think that Sweden would support an extra-judicial rendition in such a high profile case. Rendition worked only because it was done in extreme secrecy - Assange's return to Sweden will be a huge media event. The Swedes can't just make him disappear without a huge outcry and a major political crisis.
Secondly, if that is what the US wanted, why didn't they do it while he was in British custody? The are much closer allies.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)I think this is the best recap on the whole subject:
>snip
"Under the “third country” refoulement provisions of the Refugee Convention, it is Britain that holds the prime responsibility for ensuring that the country to which it extradites an accused person does not then forward them onwards to a third country to face torture and persecution."
>more
http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2012/08/17/gordon-campbell-on-the-julian-assange-extradition-battle/
The US is the only one applying pressure. The Swedes don't have a real case against him and they never did.
hack89
(39,171 posts)your post is talking about extradition. Which is a legal procedure.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)The Swedes are very much into renditioning folks:
>snip
"Illegal and unconstitutional decisions of this sort, made behind closed doors, show contempt for the Swedish legal system, which has been further denigrated by attempts to get Wikileaks founder Julian Assange flown to Sweden on flimsy allegations of a sexual nature, from where, concerned parties believe the CIA would pick him up and put him on trial in the United States. Ironically, it was through Wikileaks that the world learned about the diplomatic tiff between the US and Sweden that brought an end to Swedish rendition in 2006."
- See more at: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2012/12/19/how-sweden-collaborated-with-cia-on-renditions-and-framing-of-assange/#sthash.kBtDPjoN.dpuf
hack89
(39,171 posts)You think they can render Assange in total secrecy without any public knowledge? One day he can be in a Swedish jail and the very next he disappears into the ether? And the Swedish public would allow the government do that? Really?
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Why won't our government simply give Assange an assurance that he won't be brought here if he returns to Sweden?
Suppose he did return to Sweden and they renditioned him to the US?
Why would it have to be a secret? What would you do to stop it?
What is it that you think changes everything if this were all some big secret?
It's just politics, isn't it? Wouldn't you cheer? I know that some would.
hack89
(39,171 posts)What makes you so sure they are willing to break their own laws in such a public manner? What makes you so sure the Swedish public would not punish their government for breaking their own laws? What makes you so sure the Swedish legal system would let their own government break the law? The are a true democracy with one of the most fair and independent judiciary's in the world - that is why I know that rendition is merely an excuse on Assange's part to avoid arrest.
As for the American government, the status quo suits them. Assange is out of the way and impotent. The American people don't care about Assange. He can be safely ignored. Eventually he will come out the embassy and be arrested - either a medical emergency that requires a trip to the hospital or a change in the Ecuadorian government. There is no need to give Assange any assurances - he is a fugitive from justice that deserves no special considerations.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Sweden is also full of people just like you. There are lots of folks who either don't understand the difference between right and wrong or just don't care as long as their team is winning.
So, yes, I honestly believe that under the guise of "National Security" or some such bullshit, the Swedes would rendition him to the US in a heartbeat. Of course they would.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he slowly whithers into irrelevancy without making him a martyr. There is no real purpose in making Assange disappear - Wikileaks appears to be operating just fine without him. Besides, after seeing how Assange abandoned Chelsea Manning to her fate, I doubt many whistle blowers are willing to put their lives in his hands.
Eventually he will get sick and have to go to the hospital, where he will be arrested. Or Ecuador will have a change of government and he will be invited to leave. There is no reason why this has to be resolved anytime soon.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)chose not to do so
The most natural guess, supported by the magistrate's statement findings, is that Assange's lawyers knew they'd be laughed out of court for making such an argument. But if Assange had really wanted it argued in court, he would have insisted they so argue
It is, therefore, quite inaccurate to claim "the magistrates in the UK wrestled with this question for quite a while" -- since, in fact, the issue was never raised by Assange's lawyers in court
reusrename
(1,716 posts)The UK is a signatory and therefore they are the entity that should comply with the non-refoulement principles of the 1951 convention. And yes, I recall reading a couple of OP Ed articles where UK magistrates had expressed concern over this exact issue.
Assange only wanted political assurances that he would not be rendered back to the US. It isn't complicated.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts) reusrename
(1,716 posts)You're going to 'splain it to me?
You can't be serious.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)even if Sweden drops all charges against him
His current status in the UK is that the UK courts have repeatedly held that Sweden wants him for prosecution and that the UK should extradite him: he jumped bail in the UK to avoid that extradition. His current status in Sweden is that the Swedish courts have repeatedly upheld the arrest warrants issued for him there.
St Julian's legal theory is that he cannot be extradited from country A to country B to face prosecution for alleged crimes in country B, because he fears he may also have committed prosecutable crimes in country C -- a sweeping theory that no one of sound mind supports
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Sweden doesn't want him for any prosecution. That's pure crap.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Sweden explained Assange was wanted for prosecution, and the courts agree: read the Belmarsh magistrate's findings, for example
One of the saddest features of the Assange saga is how much energy has been devoted to spewing pure unadulterated bullshit about the case. And from an objective point of view, spewing bullshit usually helps the status quo -- because bullshit doesn't help people think clearly
reusrename
(1,716 posts)You would cheer if Assange were "brought to justice" for supposed crimes against the US. I get it. And I understand that you are not alone. Many think like you do.
I just disagree. I believe in a free press. I can see the bigger picture. I have reviewed the documents where our CIA laid out plans to involve Assange in a sex scandal. I have read documents where Sweden cooperated with our own CIA in committing "extraordinary" renditions.
Those documents that you're going on about are not evidence of any crime committed by Assange. On the contrary, they are evidence of a clear and obvious abuse of power.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)summarizing the facts of that case. It remains clear you have not done so, since you continue to misrepresent the issues brought before the UK courts
The extradition case concerned whether the UK should extradite Assange to Sweden to face prosecution for rape. That, naturally, did not involve any effort by the UK courts to determine whether the sexual allegations were true: the courts merely addressed the question whether Assange should be extradited to face judicial process in Sweden. Nor have I ever taken any position whatsoever on the merits of the sexual allegations about Assange
In the course of the extradition case, Assange and his lawyers chose not to argue forward-extradition in the UK courts. They similarly chose not to argue that political considerations, international pressure, or other improper motives lay behind the Swedish arrest warrants. That was their choice, and the obvious conclusion will be that they made such choice because no real evidence supports the view that forward-extradition is possible or the view that improper motives lie behind the Swedish arrest warrants
In particular, Assange and his lawyers chose not to argue in the UK courts that Assange faced prosecution in the US, and again the obvious conclusion will be that they so chose because no real evidence supports that theory. I myself have never taken any position whatsoever on the question, whether Assange did or did not commit prosecutable crimes against the United States: I have, in fact, here and elsewhere, avoided any and all speculation on that question, for it turns on facts unavailable to me
As I told you immediately upthread, I regard the enormous energy devoted to the spewing of pure unadulterated bullshit about the Assange extradition case as one of the saddest features of the saga, since IMO bullshit prevents people from thinking clearly and accurately -- and hence typically has the effect of maintaining the status quo
One example of such bullshit is the claim that Swedish prosecution of Assange would represent an attack on the freedom of the press. Sweden has, in fact, some of the most generous journalist-protection laws in the world: current law prevents prosecution for disclosures, and public opinion strongly supports the current law. In this regard, the situation in Sweden is much more favorable to Assange than (say) the situation in the UK
Of course, it would be very interesting if you actually had CIA documents that showed the agency planning to involve Assange in a sex scandal. Your claim to have seen such documents, however, is tellingly made without evidence. If you had such documents, would not you want to publicize them?
The linking of Sweden to the extraordinary rendition scandals of the Bush II era, as an excuse for Assange to avoid Sweden, is yet another example of crude mind-fucking bullshit
First the facts:
It is true that, around December 2001, Sweden repatriated Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery to Egypt in violation of Swedish law, where they were tortured. But when the facts came to light, there was public outrage in Sweden, together with official apologies to the victims and monetary restitution for the wrong. Sweden's behavior there, unfortunately, was no worse than the behavior of many other countries. In the Anglophone world, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom are known to have engaged in extraordinary renditions: all three have paid monetary restitution to victims. In the rest of Europe, Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Turkey are known to have engaged in extraordinary renditions: other than Sweden, to my knowledge, none have paid victims any monetary restitution, though Germany, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, and Spain have conducted national investigations into the matter
Let us now ask, how concerned was Assange about this? He set up Wikileaks in Iceland in 2006, some years after various sources first began publishing allegations that Iceland was involved in the extraordinary renditions scandals, and he remained established there for some years. When Assange founded Wikileaks, the Swedish cases were already well-known by then having come to light somewhat earlier. Four years later in 2010, Assange traveled to Sweden, hoping to move Wikileaks there, and applied for permanent residency: by then, the Swedish cases had been public knowledge for more than five years, but this apparently did not matter to Assange at the time. Allegations regarding UK involvement in extraordinary rendition began to surface by 2005. UK involvement in the extraordinary rendition program was common knowledge, and the subject of regular news reports, for several years before Assange fled from Sweden to the UK in 2010 to avoid prosecution. Again, this apparently did not matter to Assange at the time
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Facts are stubborn things.
These things really did happen and are still happening:
The Swedes are in bed with our CIA.
They have assisted the US with "extraordinary" renditions.
The downing of the Bolivian president's jet in Europe is not some "scandal of the Bush II era" but something that was done by this administration.
Searching Morales' jet for Snowden is absolute proof that you are dead wrong about this whole thing, but I do understand how it's more convenient or somehow takes much less courage to just ignore these stubborn facts and instead cry "bullshit!"
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)If Assange has been worried about extraordinary rendition, it hasn't been manifest in his travels
The fact that Egypt was known to be involved in Bush's extraordinary rendition scandals, didn't keep him from visiting Egypt in 2007
The fact that Germany was known to be involved in Bush's extraordinary rendition scandals, didn't keep him from visiting Germany in 2008
The fact that Austria, Denmark, and Spain were known to be involved in Bush's extraordinary rendition scandals, didn't keep him from visiting Austria, Denmark, or Spain in 2009
The fact that Australia, Belgium, and the US were known to be involved in Bush's extraordinary rendition scandals, didn't keep him from visiting Australia, Belgium, or the US in 2010
The fact that Iceland, was known to be involved in Bush's extraordinary rendition scandals, didn't keep him from renting a house in Iceland in 2010
The fact that Sweden had been involved in Bush's extraordinary rendition scandals, didn't keep him from attempting to obtain permanent residence in Sweden in 2010
The fact that the UK had been involved in Bush's extraordinary rendition scandals, didn't keep him from fleeing from Sweden to the UK in 2010 and spending well over a year living comfortably in a mansion there, while fighting the Swedish extradition request in the UK courts
His tale of being terrorized by the thought of being extraordinarily rendered makes no sense, in light of his history
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Ya know, you're right.
This stuff takes way too much character and honesty to try and take any of it seriously.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)and the UK ISN'T? The UK is the USA's closest ally. British intelligence agencies are the CIA's major foreign partner. If the USA were so intent on getting Assange, if the charges against Assange represent some sinister and devious plot by the CIA to put him in a position to be brought to the US for trial and/or detention...why Sweden? Why not London? That's completely irrational and makes absolutely no sense.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)As I've explained before, it's a political question. You do understand what that means, don't you?
London threatened to do EXACTLY what you suggest, but they don't have the political juice to git-er-done:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-16/britain-threatens-to-raid-ecuador-embassy-for-assange/4201880
It caused an international outcry!
This is a political question. If your politics are for freedom of the press, fine, you see it one way. If your politics favor fascism, fine, you see it the other way.
But the facts are the facts. When you find that you have to ignore certain facts to make certain assumptions, then my advice would be to review the assumptions; don't just put your head in the sand and ignore the reality that you know exists.
And you now know the facts.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Assange was already in London before he went to Sweden. He was at liberty the whole time his extradition was being argued in the British courts. Before he decided to beg asylum from Ecuador. Why would the British not set up Assange as he was supposedly set up in Sweden? Why involve the Swedes at all? Again, it makes no sense whatever.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Before the sex charges Assange was more of a hero than he is now.
How would what you're proposing have been possible considering the political implications?
Seriously.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)If the sex charges are trumped up (which I don't believe), why Sweden? The same thing could have been set up in the UK. (And Assange has admitted to the substance of the charge against him while denying that it constitutes rape. Which failed as a defence against extradition as the High Court found that the alleged act would constitute rape under English law as well.)
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Maybe it's the accent.
Cha
(298,021 posts)continued explanation of the legalese on the Julian Assange Case, struggle4progress.
Nutshell..
"St Julian's legal theory is that he cannot be extradited from country A to country B to face prosecution for alleged crimes in country B, because he fears he may also have committed prosecutable crimes in country C -- a sweeping theory that no one of sound mind supports." 
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)to force down the plane of Bolivia's head of state, Assange seems prescient in his fears and actions.
However, the Europeans now seem to be getting a bit miffed over the scope of Operation Spy On Everyone, and perhaps the Swedes are looking for a way to climb down from their assigned role as Assange-snatchers.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)And people, who want to change the world a bit, need some realism to succeed in that endeavor
You are, of course, free to believe "Assange is prescient," if the thought pleases you
But it is unclear to me exactly how your assumption "Europe's willing accomplices obeyed the US request to force down the plane of Bolivia's head of state" could lead, by any normal reasoning, to a belief in the "prescience" of Assange
What you present, as argument, is (in fact) a collection of utterances that you approve merely because they fit together into a certain pre-chosen view of the world
Your assumption, that "Europe's willing accomplices obeyed the US request to force down the plane of Bolivia's head of state" (for example) is quite packed with unsupported claims, both explicit and implied
Your primary assumption is that "the plane of Bolivia's head of state was forced down" -- but (in fact) the Bolivian plane requested an emergency landing in Austria, citing possible fuel gauge malfunction, and that is not within the ordinary meaning of "the plane was forced down"
From this primary assumption, you and various others deduce that "the US asked Europeans to force down the plane of Bolivia's head of state." It might be interesting, and worthy of attention, if any evidence supported the claim -- but no direct evidence exists: all argument, advanced in support of the theory, presupposes (contrary to fact) that "the plane of Bolivia's head of state was forced down" and, on that basis, then attempts a circumstantial case that "the US asked Europeans to force down the plane of Bolivia's head of state." Such circumstantial argument lacks all merit when it rides upon a primary assumption completely contrary to fact
The assumptions continue from there: after "the US asked Europeans to force down the plane of Bolivia's head of state," we have the claim that "the Europeans forced down the plane of Bolivia's head of state." This (again) might be interesting, and worthy of attention, did evidence support the claim -- but it falls in presupposing "the plane was forced down"
I would urge you that, only by attending very carefully to the facts and avoiding sloppy summaries, can we obtain a view of current situations, accurate enough to enable us to think clearly
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)All of the sudden. And the governments later apologized for doing it.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/05/195930/how-the-hunt-for-edward-snowden.html
Why would they apologize for something they didn't do?
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)From your link:
Audio:
Austrian statements:
Morales describes the Vienna detour:
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Only in some alternate universe do jets fly without fuel.
They were denied access to their planned fuel stop.
They were running out of gas.
They never claimed to have a faulty fuel gauge. You're just making shit up.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)They may well have run out of gas, and they may well have intended to stop at Lisbon
But as indicated in #50, they had been told in advance, at least a day before the flight, that problems at Lisbon prevented a refueling stop there, so they had filed a new flight plan with refueling at Las Palmas in the Canary Islands
The Portuguese say that the plane in-flight then sought permission to land at Lisbon anyway, despite having been advised before leaving Russia that refueling at Lisbon would be impossible
reusrename
(1,716 posts)They require fuel.
I know that you still believe that if they had not had a mechanical failure with their fuel gauge then they would still be circling somewhere over Europe to this day.
I get it.
You just cannot comprehend how shit works.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)The Bolivians have a flight plan with refueling in Lisbon
A day or so before the flight, the Portuguese say, There's a problem, so you can't refuel at Lisbon
So the Bolivians file a new flight plan with refueling at Las Palmas in the Canary Islands
But they figure, What the fug! We're the President of Bolivia! They'll have to let us refuel in Lisbon!
They set off for Lisbon anyway, ignoring the filed flight plan
As they head off over the Alps, they radio Lisbon asking for permission to refuel there, but Lisbon says, We already told you that isn't possible
So they contact Spain, asking for permission to land to refuel
Spanish air traffic control looks at the flight plan and sees it's for refueling at Las Palmas, which is Spanish territory, shrugs and says, No problem! We've cleared you through to Las Palmas
So they contact France, asking for permission to enter French airspace
But France is expecting the President's plane on a different route and they have some trouble understanding exactly what this unexpected plane is and who's on it
So France is a bit slow granting permission, because they're trying to figure out which end is up
They try the same ploy with the Italians
Then the Bolivians finally decide to ask for an emergency landing, claiming they think their fuel gauge is faulty
No air traffic controller wants a plane with faulty equipment flying over the Alps, so the Bolivians are instructed to head for the nearest airport, which is Vienna -- behind them
They turn back and get emergency permission to land at Vienna, where the equipment is inspected
At about the time the plane lands, the request to enter Italian airspace is granted
The Austrians do a passport check
But Morales is royally pissed
He accuses the Austrians of kidnapping his plane; he accuses the French, Italians, Portuguese, and Spanish of being involved in a conspiracy against him
Somebody calls the Spanish ambassador, to notify him that the President of Bolivia is on TV, fuming about Spain
The Spanish ambassador hightails it to the airport, where he tells Morales, Look, it's late at night, and I've had a long day, but maybe you could invite me onto the plane for a cup of coffee and we could talk over whatever the issue is
Morales shouts at him
The Spanish ambassador backs off and tries to figure out what's going on
Meanwhile, no faulty equipment is found by inspection, and they presumably take on enough fuel to reach Las Palmas
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Never happened.
They ran out of gas.
When you have no gas you don't get any indication.
Empty!!!!!
Get it????
Just stop lying about the claim of a faulty gauge is all I ask.
Never happened.
They ran out of fuel.
All the rest of your strawmen don't even deserve an honest response.
Just don't keep on with this lie about a faulty gauge being claimed.
It did not happen! Please stop lying about it.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Portuguese Reports:
Alexandre Martins
03/07/2013 - 13:53
Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros cancelou aterragem e sobrevoo do avião do Presidente da Bolívia na segunda-feira "por considerações técnicas", mas voltou a autorizar sobrevoo no mesmo dia. Acusa Bolívia de insistir "num procedimento que teria violado a soberania portuguesa"
http://www.publico.pt/mundo/noticia/portugal-lamenta-incomodo-do-presidente-evo-morales-mas-nega-responsabilidades-1599129
... In a statement, the press office .. asserts the flight plan of the aircraft Falcon 900EX Bolivian Air Force was authorized by the Portuguese authorities on 28 June for a trip of President Evo Morales to Russia with stopovers in Lisbon for both trips -- La Paz / Moscow and Moscow / La Paz. This authorization was "canceled due to technical considerations" on Monday, July 1, one day before the return trip to Evo Morales to his country. "In response to the Bolivian authorities' request for clarification, received at 19h19 that day, they were informed at 21:10 that technical considerations did not preclude overflight of national airspace, and new authorization for overflight was expressly granted. Landing was impossible due to technical considerations ... Bolivian authorities continued to insist on landing in Lisbon" ... Bolivia submitted a new flight plan late Tuesday afternoon, with passage through Portuguese airspace and landing for refueling in Las Palmas, Spain ...
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)abjectly apologized for denying airspace.
And the Austrians demanded to search Morales' plane based on communications with the US government.
OK, then.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)we never denied you our airspace"
IIRC Italy similarly said it never denied airspace to Morales. Perhaps you can find the actual language of any supposed Italian "apology"
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)in light of the Portuguese account of events
Portugal said it had told Morales a day or two in advance of the flight that refueling at Lisbon would be impossible, that Morales plane had then filed a new flight plan with refueling at Las Palmas, but that as it approached Portugal the plane nevertheless demanded to refuel at Lisbon, which was denied per prior notice
If the filed flight plan was towards Las Palmas but the plane was headed towards Lisbon, the in-flight request to enter French airspace would have differed from the traverse of French airspace in the filed flight plan. And in fact the French said they had been confused by the prospect of two different possible Bolivian planes in their airspace, as would be understandable if the expected plane along the notified path had not be seen but another unnotified plane suddenly appeared elsewhere. Since, after all, they had a filed flight plan for Morales, which did not correspond to this "second" place, they would have wondered what plane it was and who was on board
France apologises to Bolivia over jet row
Morales’s plane not allowed to country because of 'conflicting information' about passengers, says French President.
Last Modified: 04 Jul 2013 10:46
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)they want Assange for arrest and prosecution. The "questioning" he's wanted for is not "questioning so we may further investigate".
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
Lost_Count
(555 posts)Thy doesn't set a terrible standard or anything...
