Ecuador Grants Asylum to Assange

I guess there is no surprise about this but it certainly qualifies as regional news. All the "usual stuff" can be found in The Washington Post, BBC and such. There are, however, a lot of other sources that seem much more interesting.

It seems the UK is now in somewhat of a mess with its threats. At 1700 (GMT), the Foreign Secretary is scheduled to, um, say something. It just makes me want to go back and re-watch the BBC series "Yes, Prime Minister".

In this particular case, Ecuador has come off as the diplomats. On the other hand, the response to their deplomacy efforts pretty much proved that Assange's request for asylum was justified.

We see relations between Colombia and Ecuador to be very good, Paraguay being tossed out of MERCUSOR because of it's virtual coup, Latin America establishing more direct trade with countries outside the Western Hemisphere, ..., Brazil growing as a manufacturing nation and more. We even see Nicaragua growing economically in spite of economic bad times for its biggest trading partner, the US.

Could this be the beginning of Latin American nations finally being able to make their own decisions?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Transfer to Sweden?

As there has been no breakthrough between the UK and Ecuador because the UK continues to say that it's primary obligation is to deliver Assange to Sweden for questioning and Sweden is not budging on two items:

  1. It will not question Assange in London.
  2. It will not guarantee that if Assange travels to Sweden that he will not be subject to extradition to another country.

There is to be a meeting between the UK foreign minister and Ecuador's foreign minister on 27 Sep. Ecuador is now mulling over an idea that would at least get the UK out of the loop. That would be to transfer Assange to the Ecuadorian embassy in Sweden. Thus, he would remain under the protective custody of Ecuador based on his asylum, but there would be one less player involved. There is no down-side for the UK as Assange being there is nothing more than an expense for them.

Those Fifteen Minutes

finally running out:

He is free to leave in 2022 when the extradition warrant times out, not all that long in the sands of time.

In other related news:

Is The Left

Aborigine Passport

How does that work exactly ? Can you travel on a Aborigine passport?

I had this idea . . . (if anyone really wanted him that badly): Come in from the back of the building with one of those special CIA stealth helicopters, with suppressed exhaust (the Osama Special Edition). A UK Marine drops onto the balcony, --BUT keeps his feet a few inches off the floor so he doesn't violate Ecuadorian sovereignty. He grabs Assange in a bear hug, and the copter winches them both up as the helicopter pulls away.

Media coverage of Assange and Palacio

The US granted asylum to journalist Emilio Palacio from Ecuador. A lot of mainstream press have been telling us that Ecuador is anti-journalist and use Palacio as an example then suggesting that it makes no sense for Assange to really want asylum there.

If you have heard this story, an article in Truthout is worth adding to your reading list. It debunks the stories.

One Way Street Assange

And I heard that his air mattress is leaking too (not confirmed).

important update for KWP

Keywest, An Aug. 17 article said they got him a proper mattress. :-)

That's Good

(That he has a decent mattress to sleep on).

It's looking like a long stay there for our boy.

Mel from Honduras

Is coaching him. Don't be surprised to see him on the balcony in PJ's and a white cowboy hat.

The Brits are good at this stuff....

Mr. Assange, meet Mr. Smedley's team.

Now, about this "not fair" allegation...

Ecuador, Press Freedom and Asylum

I just ran into this AFP article that has all the right ingredients but is, well, strange.

While it talks about the Assange case, it is about the press in Ecuador and the US granting asylum to a convicted journalist who has been pardoned in Ecuador. In any case, it is nice to see the US believes in granting asylum to journalists.

Palacio, the newspaper's former opinion page editor, and two members of the newspaper's top management fled to the United States in August 2011 after Correa filed a libel suit against them.

Correa won the suit, with the court fining El Universo $40 million for "defamatory libel." However, Correa later pardoned Palacio and three other top executives who had been found guilty.


Not a mynah bird

An article in the Vancouver Courier sanely questions the Assange smear campaign.

As of this Wednesday, a Google search of the terms "Assange," "berate" and "Ecuador" netted 171,000 hits (5,930 hits on Google News alone). The problem is there was no actual "berate," at least according to the dictionary definition of the verb: to "scold, rebuke, reprimand, reproach, reprove, admonish, chide, criticize, upbraid." Rather, the hunted activist calmly called on U.S. president Barack Obama to "do the right thing" and stop the U.S. persecution of his whistleblowing organization and its members.

Assange the Rapist

Maybe I am slow but I just thought of this. If the rape (sex by surprise) acquisition were real, why does Assange need to be interviewed before charges are made? In every criminal system I am aware of, the charges are based on what victims and witnesses have to present -- not on what the accused may deny. Pretty much the whole case was leaked by the police to the press. There is, in theory, one person who accuses Assange. The other person never even signed the police report, apparently once she realized that is was a potential criminal charge rather than the reason she initially agreed to talk to the police.

Assuming the Swedish approach to interviewing is not to beat a confession out of him, how can "he has to be interviewed in Sweden" make any more sense than him, no matter where he is, flatly saying that he is not willing to say anything more?

More Assange The Rapist

An excerpt:

"Women's allegations are serious

The reaction from the progressive left was almost universally gleeful at the suggestion that Assange could hide out and be protected in Ecuador. On Democracy Now Daniel Ellsberg, whose release of the Pentagon Papers made him one of America's most famous whistleblowers, congratulated Ecuador "for standing up to the British Empire here, for insisting that they are not a British colony, and acting as a sovereign state ought to act."

It is certainly reasonable to question the intentions of the U.S. under these circumstances; after all, Assange publicly humiliated the country by making public a number of misdeeds and criminal behaviour on the part of the U.S, including widespread torture and the deaths of thousands of civilians during the Iraq war. The trouble with the left's love affair with Assange is not that there is any question about whether freedom of speech should be protected and that powerful nations like the U.S. should be held to account, but rather that the whole ordeal has created a disturbing conversation around the sexual assault allegations, the credibility of the women who've made these claims, and more generally, the seriousness of rape.

Assange is accused of penetrating one woman while she slept and having held down another in order to penetrate her without a condom though she repeatedly tried to reach for one (which he also is said to have prevented by holding her arms). If we accept that non-consensual sex constitutes rape, it stands to reason that, if these allegations prove to be true, what happened to those two women constitutes rape.

Yet the women's allegations have been viewed by many as either inconsequential or as a "honey trap" -- a term that describes the use of women by intelligence agencies to lure in male targets.

Feminist author and activist Jaclyn Friedman finds the reaction from many progressives infuriating. "They are so eager [to support Assange] that they will throw aside women's rights to our bodily autonomy if it means defending someone who is supposed to be a lefty hero," she said. "


MP George Galloway said that even if the allegations against Assange are true they do not constitute rape, commenting, "Woman A met Julian Assange, invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him, claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen, you know. I mean, not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion."

The gentleman is strange (my comment, not part of the article).

keep reading

KeyWest, At some point you will learn that neither woman considered it a problem until over a week later when they found out about each other. Then they went to the police because they wanted Assange to take an HIV test, not to accuse him of anything. They are two groupies who invited a stranger home specifically to have sex. I'm not saying what he did was right - it isn't - but perhaps their behavior is the reason the case was dismissed the first time. The big mystery was why it was re-opened by another prosecutor in another jurisdiction.

The Slippery Slope

starts with Assange:

" .. . .Some suggested early on that the girl was partly responsible because they say she wore makeup, looked older than her age and wasn't properly supervised by her parents. . . . ."

Key West, I don't get it...

You suggesting that because the rape allegations are a little will lead to events like in the in the link?

I'm Saying That

rape is rape, and any rationalization for any reason , whether an overwhelming desire to overlook it for political reasons, or an attempt to blame the victim as in the link ("she wore makeup"),, trivializes the seriousness of the crime. I thought that we were past that.

Assange has had any number of apologists . .. . ( "It really wasn't rape, because .. . ). If the context were different, and if he were a white conservative, the feminists would be screaming for his head, rather than doing a Clinton-esque parsing of the crime. I understand it's the PC world we live in, but I don't accept it. As a far left liberal who embarrassed the US, the UK, Australia and some other first world countries -to the delight of many- Assange simply CAN'T be a rapist.

This hypocrisy reminds me of rationalizations for Mussolini (got the trains running on time); and Hitler (restored our national pride); and Correa (Ecuadorans don't really need a free press; most of them are illiterate anyway).

Lets see and hear what they are prepared to swear to

under oath and in the box before we (rather oddly) compare this case to anything about Mussolini or Hitler.

The good thing about a jury trial is that they will apply normal, modern thought processes from a selection of society of today...not when a law was written. IMO they will decide against your comment that "Rape is Rape".

Remember this is not USA law...we have no idea what case law each side will use to defend or prosecute this.

Well, All Our

boy has to do is quit hiding under his air mattress in the Ecuadorian embassy and go to Sweden and let the process begin. Declare his innocence and make his case. It's probably too late for the "friends" who put up $320K in bail, and another 10 or so who will lose another $300K at a hearing in October. But, what's a few hundred thousand among friends?

His Swedish accusers might disagree with your assessment. They seem pretty steadfast, considering the pressure that must be on them to "recant" their heresy. In any case, they deserve their day in court, just as Assange does.

If he's innocent, he's innocent. My problem is, a number of people have dismissed the allegations -to their own political ends- before " . . . normal, modern thought processes from a selection of society of today . . ." have been applied. Don't the Swedish girls deserve better ??

It wouldn't matter if he were convicted, he's the reigning Mother Teresa of the far left, and the conviction will be dismissed as politically motivated.

I feel like you have missed a month of discussion

Just to hit the high points:

  • He might have one accuser, certainly not two. The other refused to even sign the complaint -- she was just trying to see if he could be required to take an STD test which he did.
  • The whole "case" was dismissed. A different prosecutor decided to re-open it.
  • Assange stayed in Sweden for 5 weeks after the original inquiry and was told he could leave.
  • The Swedish prosecutor said she could not interview him away from Sweden but, at the same time, did this with in other cases.
  • "Rape is rape" is like saying "a cel phone is a cel phone". The crime which he has NOT been charged with is not a crime in most of the world. One UK paper characterized it as "sex by surprise" which pretty much fits. See my discussion below.
  • Assange has agreed to go to Sweden (many times) if he is guaranteed he will not be sent on to a third country.

So, about this "rape is rape". I am going to describe this from a guy perspective. Have you even been in bed with someone who you have had sex with before and woke up to them initiating sex with you? (Confession: I have.) Well, this is the crime we are talking about. That is, if this had happened to one of us guys when we were in Sweden, it would have been a crime. The main thing I have been convinced is that if I ever go to Sweden I will make sure a have a lawyer with me all the time.

As expected

ALBA countries reject British threats on Ecuadorian embassy in London from Caribbean News Now.

This isn't about the asylum; it's about the inviolability of embassies.

OAS Permanent Counsel Vote

Ecuador has asked for a OAS meeting of the foreign ministers with regard to whether Embassies, ... cannot be violated by "local" authorities. The final vote was 23 yes, 3 no and 5 obstain from calling the foreign minister's meeting. It is scheduled for Friday, 24 Aug at 11AM.

If there was a surprise, it was that Honduras both supported the resolution and went into detail as to why that had to be his position. Basically, he explained that the Vienna Convention with regard to this formed part of the laws of Honduras.

TRN Clip

More at The Real News

The legal side of what now in less than 15 minutes.

This smells fishy to me

The whole rape charge smells fishy to me. The same goes for the prosecutors.

In interest regarding this case, see what happened with the case about the torrent provider .

Assange should fear being extradited from sweden to the US. Anyone here that remembers the "secret" CIA planes flying all across the world with victims that were going to be tortured? Well, the swedish government inoficially allowed these planes to land in sweden.

He should run and hide in south america, change his name and his looks.

Wikileaks looked like what I saw in declassified docs ...

...from the early 20th Century detailing the US's help of GB in going after Indian National Congress agitators, kept secret from the US public but obvious to most members of the Indian National Congress.

The thing about secret correspondence is that it's rarely secret from the nations affected by the US diplomatic maneuvers. State simply doesn't want the folks back home to know what's being done in their names.

Rebecca Brown

International involvement

UNASUR, ALBA, and the OAS will be meeting on the British threat to the Ecuadorian embassy. There were words from the Ecuadorians this morning about ending colonialism. Article from La Prensa Latina.

From an ex-MI5 Agent

Annie Machon called The Assange Witch Hunt. Of particular interest (meaning it seems to have not been addressed anywhere) is the British law that was mentioned to give them the right to storm the embassy.

The UK jus­ti­fies this by cit­ing the 1987 Dip­lo­matic and Con­su­lar Premises Act, a law appar­ently put in place fol­low­ing the 1984 shoot­ing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher from the Libyan Embassy in Lon­don. The murder res­ul­ted in an 11-day siege, and the embassy staff even­tu­ally being expelled from the coun­try. Nobody has yet been brought to justice for this murder.


Yes, the UK threatened to revoke Ecuador's embassy status if they gave Assange asylum, then threatened to enter embassy grounds and take him by force. As you might guess, this has caused an uproar in the diplomatic community. (All this for someone that hasn't been charged with anything.)

The OAS has now offered to convene an extraordinary OAS Assembly over the matter.


I am hoping that he is extradited to Sweden to go on trial for the 2 rapes he is accused of. I know whatever time he does in Sweden will not be 'hard' time but after Sweden is done with him he will be extradited to the US and hopefully spend a good deal of the rest of his life in a US prison.


Your comment is similar to a few uninformed ones in response to a NYT article. Here are the problems:

  1. He has not been indicted for any crimes in Sweden. He voluntarily went in for questioning and was released in Sweden. Sweden, after some strange change of prosecurors, then asked him to return for further questioning. He was concerned about exactly your second point -- extradition to the US. While considering his request for asylum, Ecaudor both offered to let Swedish officials question him in the Ecuadorian Embassy and also asked if Sweden would guarantee he would not be extradited to the US if he traveled to Sweden.
  2. While there are indications that there is a sealed warrent in the US, there are no current US charges against him.
  3. If he was extradited to the US from Sweden he has a pretty legitimate fear of persecution. Your own statement supports that. If we look at the treatment of Bradley Manning, it is a bit hard to think the ideas of "innocent until proven guilty" and "no torture while in government custody" still exist.

A Wikileaks Forum post from over a year ago helps fill in the extradition details.

If Sweden's story had any merit, they were offered opportunities and turned them down. If the US unsealed the warrent now, it would certainly just add more support to his asylum claim. If, on the other hand, all is how it is currenty being pretended, the UK can let Assange leave for Ecuador, get out of the middle and let Sweden and Ecuador work things out.

To me, what's refreshing is that more people seem to be waking up to political lies. Clearly, part of that credit goes to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. What's disappointing is how few nations, including his own, aren't willing to take a stand.


as usual FYL, you are the one misinformed, or perhaps just overwrought by your socialist anti US tendencies. There are at least 4 countries seeking prosecution of Assange. Including his home country of Australia whose government, including the main opposition party refuses to intervene and say he should be removed to Sweden. , there is the UK, Sweden, and the US. Contrary to you and your crowds conspiracy theories it is extremely unlikely that 4 separate independent national states would engage in a conspiracy of " political lies" as you call it. Assange is wanted for various reasons from investigation of rape to espionage to theft of secret government documents. If Assange is in time extradited to the United States ( which he will be) he will not have to fear persecution there but rather prosecution.There are enough of you radical socialists around to ensure he will not be persecuted. Hopefully he will be given a sentence similar to any other spy or enemy agent which would be 40 to life. Even if he is lucky enough to ever return to Australia he could also be prosecuted there under their espionage act which is as follows:

Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code, contained in the schedule of the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995,[3] defines treason as follows:

(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:

(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and

(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or

(f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:

(i) another country; or

(ii) an organization; that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defense Force; or

(g) instigates a person who is not an Australian citizen to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or a Territory of the Commonwealth; or

(h) forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph and manifests that intention by an overt act."

Since Australian armed forces are actively involved in the war in Afghanistan, your Mr. Assange is guilty of treason for revealing information that may have cost Australian soldiers their lives and for providing information that may b have damaged Australian security over the long term

Stick to vegetarianism FYL, something you know something about. Politics and the world of intelligence is not something you know anything about.

Just to finish up, I notice that you have also failed to mention anything about Ecuador's President Correa and his involvement in giving sanctuary and material support to the Colombian FARC guerrillas down on the Ecuadorian side of the Rio Putumayo. From there Farc commander Raul Reyes, was able to raid into Colombia killing and kidnapping civilians and Colombian soldiers alike with wanton impunity. Now you want to talk about a little conspiracy how about this one in which your socialist friends in Ecuador and Venezuela engage by actively supporting narco-terroism along with FARC and similar groups. That too is a little regional news


You said:

There are at least 4 countries seeking prosecution of Assange.

Where are those charges?

No, I didn't mention anything about Correa because I didn't think he was on trial here. However, you might want to watch a speech he gave in 2009 which is available on YouTube. It is on economics and is in English. During the Q and A part (which is part in English, part in Spanish) Correa is asked about Ecuador/Colombia relations and the FARC incident you are probably concerned about and addresses it.

Finally, as for your assertion that this has soemthing to do with socialism, I suggest you read The West Has Just Become a Giant Banana Republic on Sovereign Man, a site that most would label as Libertarian.

well Sir

he is now subject to arrest upon leaving the Ecuadorian embassy for jumping bail to start with- on being sent to Sweden he will be put into jail while the rape charges are investigated and obviously the Swedes seem to think they have a valid case - and it seems pretty common knowledge that a secret grand jury has been empaneled in the US awaiting his transfer to Sweden before charges are announced on the US side. And as I pointed out under Australian law he could also be charged with treason and aiding the enemy there. In any event, Australia obviously is giving him no support and clearly wants to see him answer to the rape allegations in Sweden and more than likely to the charges awaiting him in the well. As for Correa answering about FARC, the best that could be said about him is he is an unsophisticated liar. That FARC had, and continues to have sanctuary in Ecuador is pretty common knowledge in both countries, least as far as my Colombian friends all tell me. That FARC could operate on that side of the border without the blessings of the Correa government is just plain ludicrous as is the idea they could be operating there without any knowledge of the Ecuadorian government.

UK Really Didn't

have to let it get out of hand like this. Regardless of your position on Assange, Manning and the benefits and/or consequences of the classified information released, the UK could have simply and discreetly intervened in any attempt by Assange to leave the UK. They still will. Ecuador could take the extraordinary step of issuing him a diplomatic passport, but I seriously doubt that will deter the UK. They will advance the same argument that it is an abuse of the diplomatic privilege.

UK's position that the sheltering of Assange by Ecuador was not an acceptable use of embassy property has merits, but I question whether Assange was the proper vehicle to test that position. Embassies have been used historically for numerous other purposes, from humanitarian to criminal. Assange is far from the most egregious misuse of an embassy.

There is no doubt that Assange was looking forward to any number of charges under US espionage laws. Manning's situation is even more difficult: unless he gets a pardon at some point he is probably looking at spending the rest of his life in prison.

Some arrangement will probably be made for Assange to serve out his sentence in Australia.

The law is a good one

Sue forgot to mention that the bullets which killed PC Fletcher and injured 10 protesters came from inside the Libyan embassy, but no-one has ever been charged over the shootings.

Again, not charged

Assange didn't go to the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid prosecution of anything he had been charged with. He went there looking for asylum because of fear of what could happen. That fear is well-justified. I brought Manning into the discussion not because of his future legal case but because it is a good example of torture while in US custody. It is is an example of how "justice" is implemented in the US for someone who is alleged to have embarassed the government, I know I wouldn't want to go there.

While some initially questioned Assange's justification for asylum, the US, UK, and Sweden have certainly shown his request was justified.

Stand on What?

Stealing communications between our embassies around the world? Is private communication.

Telling the misguided reprobate how to copy the data to a CD and put a rock bands name on it so to not raise suspicions?

He is your hero, not mine.

What kid that age needs help

What kid that age needs help copying a CD? I'm disgusted that security was so lax as to allow CDs into the place, and the network so loose that he had that much access. The IT and security people should be shot. And the way WikiLeaks (and now competitors) works is they just receive what they're given by the thieves (or whistle blowers - take your choice). If they never received it, they couldn't have published it. Newspapers have always worked the same way.

Have To Focus

Britain is legally obligated to extradite Assange to Sweden under applicable treaties. They view the Ecuadoran position as self-serving AND contrary to law. Sweden wants him; they have taken a stance against the asylum position. One would hope they have more than just smoke to insist on the extradition.

It was probably unwise of the UK to have put their end game so blatantly in that letter to Ecuador. They could have communicated it , well, diplomatically. This is allowing Ecuador to argue that they are being bullied, and divert attention from the actual matter at hand: There is a legitimate extradition request from Sweden that references the sexual assault of two young girls, ironically WikiLeaks volunteers. :)

That is hardly a political persecution, being accused of rape by part of his own crowd . Assange's fear of extradition to, and trial in the US is well-founded, but rape is also a serious crime.

Assange could have gone to Sweden, defended himself against the rape charges, and then ducked into the Ecuadoran embassy to avoid extradition to the US. His moral position would have been stronger and clearer. If he is truly innocent of the crimes in Sweden this seems like a better course of action. Otherwise he remains a rapist hiding out in Ecuador for the rest of his life.


This kind of trial is done in secret in Sweden. Assange would have been imprisoned from the time he arrived there and it's believed the US would have asked for his temporary surrender - such an agreement exists between Sweden and the US. That leaves no opportunity to go to the Ecuadorian embassy.

Sweden refused to guarantee they wouldn't release Assange to the US and turned down all attempts by Assange to be interviewed in the UK, whether in person or by video - highly unusual. The Ecuadorians made the same interview offer to the Swedes and, no doubt, took the Swedish refusal into account when they offered Assange asylum. The US said it was a matter between Sweden and Ecuador, denying any involvement, until the talk of asylum started.

The alleged acts don't qualify as rape or assault under US or UK law. The British press dubbed it "sex by surprise".

More Legal Information

including details of the Swedish criminal process and why Assange has not been "charged":

The problem with forgiving or rationalizing the Assange' rape allegations to justify minor political gains is . . . . that old slippery slope:

Finally, the myth that Assange could be more easily extradited to the US from Sweden, than from the UK, is just that, a myth. If the US asked for Assange' extradition the UK would honor that request. There is no extradition request from the US in play.

ERGO, if Assange can just as easily be extradited to the US as he can from Sweden (and that's the opinion of real lawyers in the link above, not left wing bloggers with dull axes to grind), >>>> then there is no reason for him NOT to go to Sweden to clear up the allegations against him.

Responding to Green

An article in the Guardian responds to Green's statements and a lot more.

Not so fast

I'm sure the UK would love to go along and extradite, but search for the case of Gary McKinnon. It's been 10 years of trying and they *may* get a verdict on it this year.


According to the 'kid' Assange was active in the conspiracy to collect the info beforehand. So I presume the 'kid' will get leniency when he testifies against his co-conspirator, in this case Assange. Under the 'Law" there is a difference between being handed the data from another party and involved in the conspiracy to collect it.

A young girl was just sentenced to life in prison for making a phone call that lured her ex-boyfriend to his death. It was only supposed to be a robbery by the new boyfriend but the guy wound up dead. Because she knew beforehand of the felony (the robbery) she is also responsible for the murder.

Is the law fair?

That was

That was according to Laslo, the computer hacker, not Manning. The logs of their conversation were published in "Wired Magazine" and open to interpretation. It's believed the US tried to get Manning to implicate Assange.

Laslo Is Probably

working for the NSA by now

Assange is in a lot better shape than Manning is in all of this. When he became involved is critical, as Mark pointed out. If he was just the fortunate recipient of the information he has much less of a burden than if he conspired with Manning to obtain the information. He could argue that he felt an obligation of conscience to expose what he felt were abuses of power. He's not a US citizen; his conduct is not treasonous.

Manning has no where to go. He betrayed his oath, his uniform, his country, and his fellow soldiers. He enjoyed none of the money, the celebrity (and apparently) casual sex that rained down on Assange.

Leniency . . for Manning

The prosecutors said that "the death penalty was off the table . ." This is an indication of how seriously they are taking this. There may well be other fish than Assange out there waiting to be reeled in. Assange will be offered the same deal everyone else in his position is offered: tell what you know and we'll reduce your sentence.

From what I understand, the Ecuadoran "embassy" is just a suite of offices. Things are going to get pretty crowded in there. They may have granted Assange asylum just to get him off the ambassador's couch.

Just in: Assange is sleeping on an air mattress in one of the offices. He's due to step outside Sunday morning at 9AM to make a statement.


That's after the UNASUR, ALBA, and OAS meetings. I bet Latin America presents a united front against colonialism and British aggression.

Things changed once the Brits crossed the line and put their threat in writing - and Ecuador made it public. Now it's no longer about Assange. The demonstrators were holding up signs that said, "Ecuador is not a colony".