Ecuador says UK violating human rights of WikiLeaks' Assange

[JDPriestly]

31. England delayed extraditing Pinochet giving him many years to

enjoy his guilt. Compared to Pinochet, Assange is an angel no matter how you look at it.

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/24/correa-recalls-the-uk-non-extradition-of-pinochet-on-humanitarian-reasons

The details on Pinochet's retrieve at that website. Here is more:

Within hours of the 8 a.m. announcement Thursday morning that Britain was halting extradition proceedings against Augusto Pinochet, the former dictator was onboard a plane heading back to Chile. The rapidity of the indicted torturer's exit stands in marked contrast to the ponderous pace at which the extradition process was conducted since his arrest in October 1998.

Pinochet's supporters in Santiago greeted reports of his impending return with jubilation. Retired General Luis Cortes Via, executive director of the Pinochet Foundation, said, “We're very happy ... justice has been done.” The armed forces were making arrangements for a ceremony to welcome back their former commander-in-chief.

Defenders of General Pinochet in the British Conservative Party also voiced their pleasure at his release. Former Conservative Chancellor Norman Lamont, one of Pinochet's most vocal supporters alongside Margaret Thatcher, described the extradition attempt as a “shabby episode”.

Groups representing those who had been tortured in Chile and the relatives of the “disappeared" expressed their regret that he was free to go home. Reed Brody, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, said, “It's a terrible disappointment for Pinochet's thousands of victims that he will not face trial in Spain.” In Santiago, 24-year-old student Henrika Harkko said, “We have tried to make the world listen, we wanted justice, we are not getting it.”

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/03/pino-m03.html

Pinochet was finally arrested and returned himself to Chile before he died -- never convicted of his crimes.

General Augusto Pinochet was indicted for human rights violations committed in his native Chile by Spanish magistrate Baltasar Garzón on 10 October 1998. He was arrested in London six days later and held for a year and a half before finally being released by the British government in March 2000. Authorized to freely return to Chile, Pinochet was there first indicted by judge Juan Guzmán Tapia, and charged with a number of crimes, before dying on 10 December 2006, without having been convicted in any case. His arrest in London made the front-page of newspapers worldwide as not only did it involve the head of the military dictatorship that ruled Chile between 1973 and 1990, but it was the first time that several European judges applied the principle of universal jurisdiction, declaring themselves competent to judge crimes committed by former heads of state, despite local amnesty laws.

Pinochet came to power in a violent 11 September 1973 coup which deposed Socialist President Salvador Allende. His 17-year regime was responsible for numerous human rights violations, a number of which committed as part of Operation Condor, an illegal effort to suppress political opponents in Chile and abroad in coordination with foreign intelligence agencies. Pinochet was also accused of using his position to pursue personal enrichment through embezzlement of government funds, the illegal drug trade and illegal arms trade. The Rettig Report found that at least 2,279 persons were conclusively murdered by the Chilean government for political reasons during Pinochet's regime, and the Valech Report found that at least 30,000 persons were tortured by the government for political reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet

Compare the allegations against Pinochet with those against Assange. Who was the greater criminal? Who was allowed to live free and never sentenced?

And the allegations against Assange? How does a woman admit that she consented to sex yet prove that she did not consent to unprotected sex? Her word against his? The evidence that unprotected sex occurred? Might be possible to get. But the evidence that there was no consent? That's a tough one. Unless she set a trap and taperecorded the whole thing. Even if her testimony is compelling, she may not really remember what she said. I think the case is rather hopeless. There will always be doubt about what happened. Unfortunately, not every wrong can be righted -- as is proved by Pinochet's story.