6 ms·

Assange was snatched from a foreign country.

by jolfdb 7y ago

rootusrootus 7y ago
Was he? He's not in the US. He fled the UK's jurisdiction to accept the jurisdiction of Ecuador, but of course that carries the risk that Ecuador could change their mind and transfer him to another jurisdiction, which they did. Perhaps the next stop is Sweden, then the US. In any case all of it is being done through accepted legal channels. If the US wanted him on our soil without regards to consequences, we could certainly have him in a US jail in a matter of hours.
- cyphar 7y ago
  Assange was refused the ability to travel to Ecuador (a country that he became a citizen of) from the UK, which might be a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Article 44) -- though I'm not a lawyer: > The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, grant facilities in order to enable persons enjoying privileges and immunities, other than nationals of the receiving State, and members of the families of such persons irrespective of their nationality, to leave at the earliest possible moment. It must, in particular, in case of need, place at their disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property. There is an argument to be made that since he is not embassy personnel he isn't granted any such rights (in fact that's the most likely explanation). But then again, there is some grey area here -- in the 1984 someone in the Libyan embassy in the UK shot into a crowd killing a police officer[1]. The UK police weren't granted access to investigate whether the individual who did it was embassy personnel (and thus under diplomatic immunity) or not. The UK then cut diplomatic ties with Libya and all the personnel were forced to leave and return to Libya. However, if the UK had the legal right to refuse passage for non-embassy personnel then surely they would've done so and captured all non-embassy personnel for questioning. But they didn't do that. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    The Vienna Convention certainly does not mean that any state can demand that any other state not prosecute any person of their choice, which is what you seem to be implying. You never define what "persons enjoying privileges and immunities" means. I doubt very much that it is "any random citizen of a country who happens to be inside their embassy".
    - cyphar 7y ago
      > which is what you seem to be implying. That's not at all what I'm implying. > You never define what "persons enjoying privileges and immunities" means. I copied the text directly from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations[1]. From my understanding (as a non-lawyer) it broadly means embassy personnel, which would exclude Julian Assange. However my point is that there is a case in 1984 where a suspected criminal for a crime committed in the UK (who might not have been embassy personnel) was allowed safe passage with embassy personnel. It's possible they didn't want to deal with additional scandals or didn't think of this avenue, but it is quite strange. However, the fact that the UK threatened to storm the embassy and cut of ties with Ecuador does indicate the political situation is much higher than it was in the 1984 incident. Ecuador tried to instate Assange as a Ecuadorian Ambassador, but the UK refused their request for diplomatic immunity. So it probably isn't a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (though the UN did state that the UK's actions are a violation of the Geneva Convention on Human Rights[2]). [1]: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1964/06/19640624%2002-10%20AM/Ch_III_3p.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1964/06/19640624%2002-1... [2]: https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24042&LangID=E https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
      - vintermann 7y ago
        Ecuador has full right to unilaterally choose their ambassadors, they don't need the approval of the UK. What is true is that the UK can then declare an ambassador persona non grata... But then they must be allowed to leave. It was a brilliant ploy to get Assange out, if you believed UK would adhere to the Vienna convention. Unfortunately they didn't, and there's no one around who are willing and able hold them to it.

Assange was snatched from a foreign country.

by jolfdb 7y ago

Assange was snatched from a foreign country.

Was he? He's not in the US. He fled the UK's jurisdiction to accept the jurisdiction of Ecuador, but of course that carries the risk that Ecuador could change their mind and transfer him to another jurisdiction, which they did. Perhaps the next stop is Sweden, then the US. In any case all of it is being done through accepted legal channels. If the US wanted him on our soil without regards to consequences, we could certainly have him in a US jail in a matter of hours.

cyphar 7y ago
Assange was refused the ability to travel to Ecuador (a country that he became a citizen of) from the UK, which might be a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Article 44) -- though I'm not a lawyer: > The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, grant facilities in order to enable persons enjoying privileges and immunities, other than nationals of the receiving State, and members of the families of such persons irrespective of their nationality, to leave at the earliest possible moment. It must, in particular, in case of need, place at their disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property. There is an argument to be made that since he is not embassy personnel he isn't granted any such rights (in fact that's the most likely explanation). But then again, there is some grey area here -- in the 1984 someone in the Libyan embassy in the UK shot into a crowd killing a police officer[1]. The UK police weren't granted access to investigate whether the individual who did it was embassy personnel (and thus under diplomatic immunity) or not. The UK then cut diplomatic ties with Libya and all the personnel were forced to leave and return to Libya. However, if the UK had the legal right to refuse passage for non-embassy personnel then surely they would've done so and captured all non-embassy personnel for questioning. But they didn't do that. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
- umanwizard 7y ago
  The Vienna Convention certainly does not mean that any state can demand that any other state not prosecute any person of their choice, which is what you seem to be implying. You never define what "persons enjoying privileges and immunities" means. I doubt very much that it is "any random citizen of a country who happens to be inside their embassy".
  - cyphar 7y ago
    > which is what you seem to be implying. That's not at all what I'm implying. > You never define what "persons enjoying privileges and immunities" means. I copied the text directly from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations[1]. From my understanding (as a non-lawyer) it broadly means embassy personnel, which would exclude Julian Assange. However my point is that there is a case in 1984 where a suspected criminal for a crime committed in the UK (who might not have been embassy personnel) was allowed safe passage with embassy personnel. It's possible they didn't want to deal with additional scandals or didn't think of this avenue, but it is quite strange. However, the fact that the UK threatened to storm the embassy and cut of ties with Ecuador does indicate the political situation is much higher than it was in the 1984 incident. Ecuador tried to instate Assange as a Ecuadorian Ambassador, but the UK refused their request for diplomatic immunity. So it probably isn't a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (though the UN did state that the UK's actions are a violation of the Geneva Convention on Human Rights[2]). [1]: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1964/06/19640624%2002-10%20AM/Ch_III_3p.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1964/06/19640624%2002-1... [2]: https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24042&LangID=E https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
    - vintermann 7y ago
      Ecuador has full right to unilaterally choose their ambassadors, they don't need the approval of the UK. What is true is that the UK can then declare an ambassador persona non grata... But then they must be allowed to leave. It was a brilliant ploy to get Assange out, if you believed UK would adhere to the Vienna convention. Unfortunately they didn't, and there's no one around who are willing and able hold them to it.