11 ms·

UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

188 points by Simon_M 14y ago

rizla 14y ago
I'm quite surprised that its only now that the links to Argentina and Britians current wranglings with South American countries are being talked about. Remember they are all friends. The UK has the Falklands which Argentina (mates of Ecuador) are very keen to take ownership, especially with the discovery of every conspiracy theorists favourite motivator.... OIL Yes boys and girls, perhaps this whole thing is less to do with Assange and wiki-leaks and more to do with a bit of dick waving over old wounds and money. That's a better theory for whats going on now
mootothemax 14y ago
I am starting to think that the event Julian Assange fears most is that he'll end up in Sweden, walking down the street either a free man or after serving some time in jail, and have to wonder "what should I do now?"
- AngrySkillzz 14y ago
  General opinion seems to think that he'll be questioned in Sweden and then extradited to the US, likely to sit in solitary confinement a la Bradley Manning. Now I'm not saying one way or the other, but it is definitely a possibility.
  - barking 14y ago
    Why would Sweden be more likely to extradite to the USA than the UK? Sweden is neutral whereas the UK is a USA ally.
    - AngrySkillzz 14y ago
      I agree that it isn't sensible necessarily, but I also don't blame him for believing it may happen. The US has taken a surprisingly cavalier attitude to the rights of citizens and foreign nationals as of late.
julianz 14y ago
So, just to make sure I'm keeping up, the UK is threatening an act of war against Ecuador in order to extradite an Australian who's wanted by the US to Sweden. okithinkigotit.
- elemeno 14y ago
  It's not an act of war - it's, at worst, a violation of a convention. An embassy/consulate/mission is the territory of the host country and not, as is commonly thought, sovereign to the country who's located in it.
  - Old_Faithful 14y ago
    You are mistaken. Under International law, embassies are on sovereign soil of the guest country.
mindcrime 14y ago
Isn't that basically an act of war? Or something just short of it? I can't remember another time when one country threatened to enter another country's embassy without an invitation... Have there been other cases like this in recent history??
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- dailyrorschach 14y ago
  It's somewhat unprecedented, but has happened in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission It's important to know that as the article points out Embassies do not enjoy full extraterritorial status, and contrary to popular belief are not sovereign. The practice of the host country entering only with permission is based in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and a violation of this would likely have no real material effect. That convention also requires the host country to protect the embassy and other rules. It is unlikely that the UK's allies would object, and even more unlikely that the country in question here would mount any serious diplomatic or military response. As always power benefits the powerful.
- k-mcgrady 14y ago
  From the article: "The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange." If they do that it wouldn't be an act of war, it would be legal. It definitely sets a terrible precedent though and even if it's legal Ecuador might interpret it as an act of war.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    Do you honestly believe Ecuador will initiate hostilities against NATO in order to protect a foreign citizen from due legal process in that persons home country? It would surely be less effort and risk to lift him from the roof by helicopter and whisk him to a waiting jet James Bond style. The second option seems far more likely to me.
billswift 14y ago
If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - philwelch 14y ago
    I would use the same terms to describe any fugitive on the run from rape charges. What on earth does Sweden have to gain or lose from this? This is just conspiracy theory.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
      - runako 14y ago
        >> he doesn't have an outstanding arrest warrant According to Wikipedia he is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (this is presumably why he's hiding in a non-EU embassy). Edit: arrest warrants don't always/usually imply that any charges have been filed. This is not unusual. The unusual part is a person accused of rape hiding out in the embassy of a country of which he is not a citizen, in a country of which he is not a citizen, while people cheer him on for being righteous.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        mkramlich 14y ago
        > The unusual part is a person accused of rape He has NOT been accused of rape.
        runako 14y ago
guelo 14y ago
The series of tweets from https://twitter.com/abcnews https://twitter.com/abcnews (Australian Broadcasting Corp): - #Breaking Wikileaks founder Julian Assange granted asylum in Ecuador - #BREAKING: British Government won't guarantee Julian Assange safe passage to airport to leave for Ecuador #assange - Clarification - Ecuador wants to give Assange asylum, but Britain is refusing to grant safe passage #breaking #wikileaks - Ecuador Foreign Minister says they received a letter from British govt threatening to enter embassy & arrest Assange if he's not handed over
Simon_M 14y ago
It appears under UK law the Prime Minister could denounce the embassy as no longer Ecuadorian territory. The UK government has 'reminded' Ecuador of this fact in an attempt to influence their decision.
- alan_cx 14y ago
  Presumably Ecuador could respond in kind. It may well be that the wonderful British police or SAS could smoothly extract Assange, however, what happens if the not so wonderful Ecuadorian authorities decided to lay some sort of siege to the British Embassy in Ecuador? Are British authorities really prepared to risk that?
  - cjensen 14y ago
    If Ecuador did that, the British would simply leave peaceably. I'm not understanding the risk you refer to -- would not Ecuadorians be equally hindered by the lack of a British Embassy as the British?
    - Old_Faithful 14y ago
      Well then, if that was the case then Assange could just as well peacefully with the rest of the Ecuadorian delegation. Don't forget that Assange is not and asylum "seeker" anymore, but that he has in fact been granted asylum. In other words, under international law, he is and Ecuadorian Citizen and unless Britain decides to transgress International Law and effectively declare war on Ecuador, no amount of sabre rattling will amount to anything at all.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- elemeno 14y ago
  It isn't Ecuadorian territory, it's still British territory. UK law allows the UK to declare that it won't abide by the convention that embassies enjoy special legal status in law.
Tycho 14y ago
Absolute disgrace.
jakeonthemove 14y ago
Eh, even if they get him, it's not like it's going to change much for WikiLeaks - the platform will go on, probably stronger than before. The politicians will pat themselves on the back for a "good job" catching Assange, while the leaks go on and people find out stuff they weren't supposed to know (and most of them don't even care either way). The UK should be like, "well, whatever, he'll come out eventually" instead of issuing threats against other countries. Maybe they'll send in the SAS next - that would be interesting to watch...
_delirium 14y ago
Bizarre. The usual script for these kinds of things is a standoff where the host country denies passage out of the embassy, so the person being harbored in the embassy is stuck there until either that person gives up, the embassy gives them up, or some kind of deal for passage or exchange is struck. Threatening to the invade the embassy isn't usually on the table, at least in peacetime.
- cjensen 14y ago
  The difference is that Assange did not simply ask for asylum. He agreed to go through the British Court system including posting bail under the solemn promise to obey the court. Only when he lost did he go for asylum. Sincere asylum is not "Plan B."
  - davorak 14y ago
    > Sincere asylum is not "Plan B." I do not see why this is always the case, care to elaborate?
    - cjensen 14y ago
      To receive bail, you must pledge to return to court and be bound by its decisions. Assange broke his pledge when the court ruled against him. You can choose asylum or you can choose to let the court decide. Trying to get the best of both worlds is mere gamesmanship and lacks any pretense at integrity. This is why, for example, Roman Polanski's lawyers have been refused a hearing on his matter in the US. You have to choose between being a fugitive or being tried in court. You don't get to say "I'd like the Court to find me innocent before I stop being a fugitive."
  - _delirium 14y ago
    That part, jumping bail by walking into an embassy, isn't all that unusual. China is worried enough about it that they sometimes shadow politically sensitive detainees who're out on bail to make sure they don't get close to any western embassies in Beijing.
ditoa 14y ago
This case continues to amaze me. It is like a movie not real life.
cobrausn 14y ago
Did anyone not see this coming? Does he actually think they won't go after him to the full extent they are capable? The thing about being a martyr for a cause is that they usually don't walk away from the experience unscathed. I think this man thought he was untouchable and acted accordingly, deciding to be a celebrity instead of a quiet hero. Well, the hammer is dropping. Good luck, Julian, you completely unlikable but necessary bastard. Hopefully the people who carry on in your stead are a bit more careful.
- fleitz 14y ago
  If you walk away with your life you're by definition not a martyr.
  - stinnyfregs 14y ago
    Wrong. All you have to do is make a major sacrifice.
  - cobrausn 14y ago
    Nitpicking. People are often called 'martyr for a cause' if they end up persecuted or imprisoned. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr Definition #2. It helps if you die, but it's not required.
  - Dove 14y ago
    Actually, if you'll look at the wikipedia article about the term and its history, you'll see that it has several meanings. Dying isn't always required.
- guelo 14y ago
  I like him. I guess we've probably swallowed different propaganda.
  - cobrausn 14y ago
    I tend not to swallow propaganda - I generally just dislike his behavior from the stories I've heard, from both friend and foe alike. He basically talked Manning into putting himself in the brig so he can go be the hero. I'm sure Manning was rotting in a cell while Assange was off having the sex (consensual or otherwise) that put the whole operation in jeopardy. I don't like him. Maybe that's all propaganda, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my take on it. His work is necessary but I don't like him. Besides, look at that smug face. It's seriously in the running for a 'most punchable face alive' award.
dj2stein9 14y ago
The UK government is showing its true face, that of a tyrannical authoritarian government, who's legitimacy is threatened by the exact kind of transparency that Assange's organization intends to protect.
- Old_Faithful 14y ago
  When was there even any doubt about it? Britain has been aligned with US imperialism for decades.
nickperry 14y ago
Why does Ecuador even want to stand its ground on this? Why do they want to harbor Assange in the first place? Seems silly to escalate this to the national level when they don't seem to benefit from it in any material or practical sense.
- koski 14y ago
  I'm no pro in politics but what I have read Ecuador has pretty strong relationship with Venezuela. And at least the later one is happy to get USA "angry" when possible.
- mike-cardwell 14y ago
  So countries should only respond to requests for asylum when they themselves benefit from it? The only thing that they should be looking at, is whether or not his case for asylum is valid under their rules.
  - nickperry 14y ago
    Touche
- cjensen 14y ago
  South American countries tend to lurch from right to left and back. Currently Ecuador has elected to be governed by their anti-American leftist party. I would be shocked if they didn't grant Assange asylum just for the sake of pretending to save Assange from the US, if for no better reason.
youngtaff 14y ago
About time we started applying the pressure... Assange is taking his supporters for a ride, if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions? As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused' The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer? Ship Assange out, if not Sweden then Australia, he's taking the piss (to use an UK colloquialism) and lots of people are falling for his conspiracy theory rubbish.
- anaheim 14y ago
  I know I'm going to get downvoted like hell for this, but.. In short, because Sweden is a feminist-dominated country which would love nothing more to lock up Assange for life and throw away the key because a couple of women regretted sleeping with him afterwards. Seriously, they are trying to prosecute him not for rape but for something called "unexpected sex" http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/assange-rape-accuser-c...
- TallGuyShort 14y ago
  >> if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions? If he's not guilty, AND this isn't politically motivated, why not just go back? If this is actually politically motivated, then your question is fundamentally no different from "if you're not a terrorist, why don't you just submit to wiretaps / TSA body scans / etc..." If I was him and I was innocent, I would probably not expect to face fair questions if I went back. The being said, I know almost nothing about the Swedish government so maybe I am being too much of a conspiracy theorist.
  - elemeno 14y ago
    Sweden is part of the EU and any extradition from Sweden to the US would have to permissible under EU Human Rights laws, which specifically deny extradition if the extradited person could be subject to the death penalty if found guilty of the accusations they're being extradited for. Given that the US has filled no charges against him, made no extradition requests to Sweden or the UK, and that there seems to be a fair degree of legal consensus that the European Court of Human Rights would deny extradition for the sort of charges that the US could plausibly file against him it seems to me that to believe that Assange has credible reasons to try and avoid obeying the request that he attend questioning in Sweden for what would be considered fairly serious accusations in most western countries is to buy into a conspiracy theory.
belorn 14y ago
Its interesting that around all this talk about rape allegation, no actually allegation was made by the suggested victims called so by reporters. The two women were seeking advice on the possibility to force Assange to take a STD test after unprotected sex, and a prosecutor independently decided to start the prosecution after reading the report. One of the victims has gotten so tired of it all that she now refuses to testify, and refuses to sign any old statements she made in regards to the whole affair. The other woman, as far as I know, has left the country. If in a fantasy world this would go to trial in Sweden on rape charges, it would be unlikely to see either one of the two "victims" in court.
anaheim 14y ago
A few facts about the case: * The "rape" case against Assange is basically made up, with both of the women he had sex with sending celebratory texts after the events. http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/ http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange... * Feminist-biased Sweden = possible long sentence for Assange. * Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extraditi...), which means there is a possibility he can be shipped out to the US. * The US has extremely intelligent politicians (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sarah-Palin-demands-Julian-Assange-hunted-like-Al-Qaeda-terrorist.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sa...) who demand that Assange be hunted down like a terrorist. Is it a surprise he doesn't want to "go back to Sweden to face the charges"?
AManWithOpinion 14y ago
It is important to notice that when someone started shooting from Libyan embassy in the 80s and killed a British policewoman the UK's government did not enter the embassy. However, now in a case of far less importance(basically a case whether a condom broke on its own or did Assange do it on purpose) they consider doing it? Something is seriously not right here.
- koski 14y ago
  I undertood that because the event (shooting + aftermatch) happened, the "Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987" was created. Which is now used by Brittish government.
tokenadult 14y ago
How rapidly people forget their history. Britain has a specific law on the subject because of an incident that occurred in Britain within my memory, a shooting of a police officer from within the grounds of the Libyan embassy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher No, harboring Julian Assange is not just like shooting at police officers outside the embassy, but preventing the host country from continuing to follow the steps of its agreements about accused defendants with another country is also not the normal activity of a diplomatic representative. There is a long tradition of dissidents seeking asylum in foreign embassies, and that tradition seems to be longest in Latin America, but that can also have consequences for the embassy's relationship with the host country. AFTER EDIT: By the way, it has been a very, very long time (since before I was born) since the United States federal government has imposed capital punishment for the crimes of treason or espionage (which, yes, could be a basis for capital punishment under federal law). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government#Earlier_civilian_executions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unite... http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00076.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... Nowadays, it is routine for persons who revealed secret information to the harm of the United States to be imprisoned, sometimes for a term of years rather than for life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies#Americans_convicted_of_spying_for_foreign_countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies#American... Simply put, even IF Julian Assange were to have to leave Sweden after going from Britain to Sweden for questioning, and even IF Julian Assange were then charged with espionage by the United States, and even IF he were then convicted of espionage, it is quite doubtful that Assange would be executed. Most likely, he would just (if ALL of the hypothetical events happened) end up spending a lot of time in the Supermax prison in Colorado. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Florence_ADX#Inmate_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Flo...
- elemeno 14y ago
  And the world tends to have different views on requesting asylum due to political persecution vs requesting it to avoid accusations that you've committed a fairly serious criminal act.
thom 14y ago
What appears to be the text of the communication: http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/2012/carta-britanica.pdf http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/201...
mkramlich 14y ago
So it appears that both the UK government and the Swedish government have lost moral authority due to their behavior on this issue. And if they violate the Ecuadoran embassy that could be considered an act of war. At the least a cause to cease diplomatic and trade relations. If Sweden truly just wanted to question Assange, they could do it via mail, email, phone, video chat or of course an in person meeting in the UK. All of which I believe Assange has already offered to do. But they've declined. Which means that Sweden/UK/USA's actual goal is something other than simply questioning him. It's a fact that he's neither been convicted or even charged with any crime (IIRC), especially not with respect to the supposed sexual "assault" incidents, which look like he-said/she-said instances at best, and a frame-up at worst.
- youngtaff 14y ago
  Since when has the 'accused' had the right to tell law enforcement agencies when and where they may be questioned?
  - delinka 14y ago
    Without charges (i.e. being placed under arrest) he has every right to freedom of movement. Ergo he can answer (or not answer) questions wherever he damn well pleases. If that's so inconvenient for law enforcement, charge the fucker and arrest him. I don't understand why it's gotten to this point- you charge and arrest him ... or GTFO.
    - eurleif 14y ago
      He was arrested, and his extradition was ordered. Then he sought asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy. That's what this is about.
      - delinka 14y ago
        Had he remained under arrest, how could he have sought asylum with some other embassy? "Mr. Copper, I've decided to seek asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy..." "Well, Mr. Assange, I sure hate to see you go but I guess I'll drive you there myself."
objclxt 14y ago
I strongly advise anyone who isn't familiar with English law (so, you know, most people here) to actually read what lawyers have to say about the matter. There is a very good legal analysis here: http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the-uk-withdraw-diplomatic-status-from-the-ecuadorian-embassy/ http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the... Whenever I see a story here about Julian Assange I just sigh. I don't understand how on the one hand people can be absolutely appalled when stories about sexism at conference, in the workplace, etc etc come along and then take the sort of attitudes we see here. Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women. These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this. Maybe, just maybe this is a big fit up from people 'out to get' Assange. But you also have to concede that both the simplest explanation, and one not beyond the realms of possibility, is that these women are genuinely making these accusations. They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition. Most people accused of what Assange does do not have the luxury of fleeing to a foreign embassy. I don't see why it is so controversial that Assange should go and face these allegations. Supporters of Assange really can't have their cake and eat it.
- vidarh 14y ago
  For starters, the women did not make these accusations. A prosecutor have. This distinction is worth making. At no point did these women go to the police and claim that Assange had raped them - not even the Swedish prosecution has made the claim they did. They did go to the police and ask questions that someone at the police then decided to interpret as indicating that a crime might have taken place, and start an investigation. They then were interviewed, in situations that subsequent reports indicate may have been blatant violations of police procedure - no recording was apparently made, one of the police officers involved was allegedly a friend of one of the witnesses. The results were statements that have not been formally released, nor been verified or scrutinized by anyone independent. What is allegedly the police reports were on the other hand illegally leaked to a Swedish newspaper, and Assanges name was confirmed by authorities in conjunction with the case in blatant violation of Swedish police procedures. But we don't even know if the leaked police reports are accurate or final copies. Subsequent to the investigation, the first prosecutor to get involved in the case looked at the police reports and decided they indicated that no crime had taken part. What is allegedly descriptions supported by the contents of these statements was then used in the arrest warrants formulated by a second prosecutor that stepped in in a highly unusual move and reopened the investigation. The reasons for why she stepped in to reopen just this case, despite how unusual it is to do so when another prosecutor has closed the case, has not at any point been explained. In retrospect, it is now also being alleged that one of the women is refusing to sign statements about the case at all. In other words, so far we don't even know what the women actually said to the police. What we know is the content of a highly unusual and highly illegal leak to a Swedish newspaper, and how one prosecutor has chosen to interpret their words in an arrest warrant written with the express purpose of ensuring that a UK court would extradite Assange to the UK. We do know one prosecutor found the police investigation had not found any evidence that any crime had taken place at all, and another found it did. We do know there are a lot of open questions about how the statements were collected, and about lack of documentation. We do have reason to question whether at least one of the women is willing to put her name behind the police interpretation of what she said. We don't know whether they made any actual allegations that amount to any crimes. Maybe it is all accurate, and perhaps he is guilty. But it isn't even remotely clear whether or not there even should be a case to answer. > They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition. That is true, and it is not surprising that UK courts ordered the extradition. But the real issue here is also not whether there is a genuine reason for a UK court to approve an extradition, but whether or not there is something going on that gives reason to be concerned that these accusations are not the full story. Especially in a case where the Swedish prosecution have had a year or so to interview him in London, yet have chosen not to while claiming they can't. At the same time, somehow Swedish police has been able to go off to Poland to interview two suspected Polish murderers about a double homicide. So either Swedish police has just risked messing up a double homicide case, or the Swedish prosecutor in the Assange case is at best misinformed about something she ought to know about, at worst being intentionally deceptive. Even if we don't buy the US extradition idea, this is still a strange situation. The argument that they somehow need him on Swedish soil is nonsense - Swedish police provably regularly conduct interviews outside of Sweden, and you can provably be charged and tried in absentia in Sweden, despite many claims to the contrary. So why does the Swedish prosecutor resist taking up evidence in a rape case for a year while making claims about why she is not that can not be supported by fact?
x03 14y ago
I'm a little surprised by the HN crowd's desire to turn this into some kind of Michael Bay movie with diplomatic explosions left, right and centre: the phrase "act of war" is being dropped around as if some kind of violent confrontation would ever actually occur between Ecuador and the United Kingdom based on this. This is simply not the case; at most, it would be loosely unfair of the British government to 'bully' Ecuador into its bidding and they would protest as harshly as they could (not very). This is not a fair system; international relations is a system wherein "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"[1]. The Government here has advised that under through a sound legal process it may revoke the legal status of an instituion within and on its territory. Is this right? Well, it's a little unusual...alternatively, ignoring the interests and desires of Sweden, the European Union and the United States would be still further unwise for the British. Britain has its interests, and it must do what serves them best. In this case, doing something less than usual is worth it: there's virtually no downside to upsetting a small Latin American country in the process. The British government just won't care. It's not fair, but for better or worse, that's that. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides
- caf 14y ago
  Yes. The most likely result is a tit-for-tat expulsion of ambassadors, followed by a quiet re-establishment of diplomatic ties in about a year's time.
- Steko 14y ago
  "In this case, doing something less than usual is worth it: there's virtually no downside to upsetting a small Latin American country in the process. " Let's analyze this a bit further... Next time a British citizen holes up in the British embassy over some sham charges at the hands of the local police what are the likely aftershocks of Britain bullying Ecuador over Assange.
Zenst 14y ago
I some how now expect loads of people turning up in anonymous masks outside the embassy with a group of people leaving also in aformentioned masks. There then ensues a combination of the Thomas Crown Affair and a Benny Hill sketch. Now that possible outcome aside I do wonder if there are more important clear-cut cases of people in the UK wanted for questioning regarding crimes in Switzerland. I'm tending to think that if there was then that would of been made very public already and yet I have seen none. If he is in all effect Sitzerlands number one criminal suspect or wanted criminal in the UK and who's location is known then maybe this isn't as biased with regard to pursuit than any other case and only with the News value is it publicly deemed more impacting. But thats not realy the issue, the issue if he ends up being shipped to America and lost in a maze of prisons that is the issue realy as if there was a case against him then America would of been granted a extradition from the UK, that did not happen. Now if that happens in Switzerland then that is the concern and the real issue and in that you can respect Mr Assange's concerns upon that matter and why he is taking the approach he is currently as that whole assurance has not been given that it will not happen. If he had that assurance then from my understanding is that this would not be an issue and in the news today. It is this that makes things concerning in how things are being possibly being handled. RIP Yvonne Fletcher, justice was slow, but we do get there.
- cyrus_ 14y ago
  Based on Twitter chatter, Anonymous is indeed gathering supporters in Britain outside the Ecuadorian embassy as we speak.
cypherpunks01 14y ago
It appears that the livestreaming site bambuser.com is down after a British fellow started streaming from outside the embassy and it was picked up by wikileaks on twitter: http://twitter.com/alburyj http://twitter.com/alburyj http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj
grandalf 14y ago
In 2012 a journalist is persecuted in this way. I never would have expected this to happen.
andyl 14y ago
This looks like a raw smear against Assange. Would be interesting to know the political pressures being brought to bear on the Swedish prosecutor's office.
voodoochilo 14y ago
this is an outrage!
rbanffy 14y ago
I think we are about to witness the only real rape in this whole sad story.

188 points by Simon_M 14y ago

rizla 14y ago

I'm quite surprised that its only now that the links to Argentina and Britians current wranglings with South American countries are being talked about. Remember they are all friends. The UK has the Falklands which Argentina (mates of Ecuador) are very keen to take ownership, especially with the discovery of every conspiracy theorists favourite motivator.... OIL Yes boys and girls, perhaps this whole thing is less to do with Assange and wiki-leaks and more to do with a bit of dick waving over old wounds and money. That's a better theory for whats going on now

mootothemax 14y ago

I am starting to think that the event Julian Assange fears most is that he'll end up in Sweden, walking down the street either a free man or after serving some time in jail, and have to wonder "what should I do now?"

AngrySkillzz 14y ago
General opinion seems to think that he'll be questioned in Sweden and then extradited to the US, likely to sit in solitary confinement a la Bradley Manning. Now I'm not saying one way or the other, but it is definitely a possibility.
- barking 14y ago
  Why would Sweden be more likely to extradite to the USA than the UK? Sweden is neutral whereas the UK is a USA ally.
  - AngrySkillzz 14y ago
    I agree that it isn't sensible necessarily, but I also don't blame him for believing it may happen. The US has taken a surprisingly cavalier attitude to the rights of citizens and foreign nationals as of late.

julianz 14y ago

So, just to make sure I'm keeping up, the UK is threatening an act of war against Ecuador in order to extradite an Australian who's wanted by the US to Sweden. okithinkigotit.

elemeno 14y ago
It's not an act of war - it's, at worst, a violation of a convention. An embassy/consulate/mission is the territory of the host country and not, as is commonly thought, sovereign to the country who's located in it.
- Old_Faithful 14y ago
  You are mistaken. Under International law, embassies are on sovereign soil of the guest country.

mindcrime 14y ago

Isn't that basically an act of war? Or something just short of it? I can't remember another time when one country threatened to enter another country's embassy without an invitation... Have there been other cases like this in recent history??

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
dailyrorschach 14y ago
It's somewhat unprecedented, but has happened in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission It's important to know that as the article points out Embassies do not enjoy full extraterritorial status, and contrary to popular belief are not sovereign. The practice of the host country entering only with permission is based in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and a violation of this would likely have no real material effect. That convention also requires the host country to protect the embassy and other rules. It is unlikely that the UK's allies would object, and even more unlikely that the country in question here would mount any serious diplomatic or military response. As always power benefits the powerful.
k-mcgrady 14y ago
From the article: "The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange." If they do that it wouldn't be an act of war, it would be legal. It definitely sets a terrible precedent though and even if it's legal Ecuador might interpret it as an act of war.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  Do you honestly believe Ecuador will initiate hostilities against NATO in order to protect a foreign citizen from due legal process in that persons home country? It would surely be less effort and risk to lift him from the roof by helicopter and whisk him to a waiting jet James Bond style. The second option seems far more likely to me.

billswift 14y ago

If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- philwelch 14y ago
  I would use the same terms to describe any fugitive on the run from rape charges. What on earth does Sweden have to gain or lose from this? This is just conspiracy theory.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    - runako 14y ago
      >> he doesn't have an outstanding arrest warrant According to Wikipedia he is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (this is presumably why he's hiding in a non-EU embassy). Edit: arrest warrants don't always/usually imply that any charges have been filed. This is not unusual. The unusual part is a person accused of rape hiding out in the embassy of a country of which he is not a citizen, in a country of which he is not a citizen, while people cheer him on for being righteous.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - mkramlich 14y ago
        > The unusual part is a person accused of rape He has NOT been accused of rape.
        runako 14y ago

guelo 14y ago

The series of tweets from https://twitter.com/abcnews https://twitter.com/abcnews (Australian Broadcasting Corp): - #Breaking Wikileaks founder Julian Assange granted asylum in Ecuador - #BREAKING: British Government won't guarantee Julian Assange safe passage to airport to leave for Ecuador #assange - Clarification - Ecuador wants to give Assange asylum, but Britain is refusing to grant safe passage #breaking #wikileaks - Ecuador Foreign Minister says they received a letter from British govt threatening to enter embassy & arrest Assange if he's not handed over

Simon_M 14y ago

It appears under UK law the Prime Minister could denounce the embassy as no longer Ecuadorian territory. The UK government has 'reminded' Ecuador of this fact in an attempt to influence their decision.

alan_cx 14y ago
Presumably Ecuador could respond in kind. It may well be that the wonderful British police or SAS could smoothly extract Assange, however, what happens if the not so wonderful Ecuadorian authorities decided to lay some sort of siege to the British Embassy in Ecuador? Are British authorities really prepared to risk that?
- cjensen 14y ago
  If Ecuador did that, the British would simply leave peaceably. I'm not understanding the risk you refer to -- would not Ecuadorians be equally hindered by the lack of a British Embassy as the British?
  - Old_Faithful 14y ago
    Well then, if that was the case then Assange could just as well peacefully with the rest of the Ecuadorian delegation. Don't forget that Assange is not and asylum "seeker" anymore, but that he has in fact been granted asylum. In other words, under international law, he is and Ecuadorian Citizen and unless Britain decides to transgress International Law and effectively declare war on Ecuador, no amount of sabre rattling will amount to anything at all.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
elemeno 14y ago
It isn't Ecuadorian territory, it's still British territory. UK law allows the UK to declare that it won't abide by the convention that embassies enjoy special legal status in law.

Tycho 14y ago

Absolute disgrace.

jakeonthemove 14y ago

Eh, even if they get him, it's not like it's going to change much for WikiLeaks - the platform will go on, probably stronger than before. The politicians will pat themselves on the back for a "good job" catching Assange, while the leaks go on and people find out stuff they weren't supposed to know (and most of them don't even care either way). The UK should be like, "well, whatever, he'll come out eventually" instead of issuing threats against other countries. Maybe they'll send in the SAS next - that would be interesting to watch...

_delirium 14y ago

Bizarre. The usual script for these kinds of things is a standoff where the host country denies passage out of the embassy, so the person being harbored in the embassy is stuck there until either that person gives up, the embassy gives them up, or some kind of deal for passage or exchange is struck. Threatening to the invade the embassy isn't usually on the table, at least in peacetime.

cjensen 14y ago
The difference is that Assange did not simply ask for asylum. He agreed to go through the British Court system including posting bail under the solemn promise to obey the court. Only when he lost did he go for asylum. Sincere asylum is not "Plan B."
- davorak 14y ago
  > Sincere asylum is not "Plan B." I do not see why this is always the case, care to elaborate?
  - cjensen 14y ago
    To receive bail, you must pledge to return to court and be bound by its decisions. Assange broke his pledge when the court ruled against him. You can choose asylum or you can choose to let the court decide. Trying to get the best of both worlds is mere gamesmanship and lacks any pretense at integrity. This is why, for example, Roman Polanski's lawyers have been refused a hearing on his matter in the US. You have to choose between being a fugitive or being tried in court. You don't get to say "I'd like the Court to find me innocent before I stop being a fugitive."
- _delirium 14y ago
  That part, jumping bail by walking into an embassy, isn't all that unusual. China is worried enough about it that they sometimes shadow politically sensitive detainees who're out on bail to make sure they don't get close to any western embassies in Beijing.

ditoa 14y ago

This case continues to amaze me. It is like a movie not real life.

cobrausn 14y ago

Did anyone not see this coming? Does he actually think they won't go after him to the full extent they are capable? The thing about being a martyr for a cause is that they usually don't walk away from the experience unscathed. I think this man thought he was untouchable and acted accordingly, deciding to be a celebrity instead of a quiet hero. Well, the hammer is dropping. Good luck, Julian, you completely unlikable but necessary bastard. Hopefully the people who carry on in your stead are a bit more careful.

fleitz 14y ago
If you walk away with your life you're by definition not a martyr.
- stinnyfregs 14y ago
  Wrong. All you have to do is make a major sacrifice.
- cobrausn 14y ago
  Nitpicking. People are often called 'martyr for a cause' if they end up persecuted or imprisoned. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr Definition #2. It helps if you die, but it's not required.
- Dove 14y ago
  Actually, if you'll look at the wikipedia article about the term and its history, you'll see that it has several meanings. Dying isn't always required.
guelo 14y ago
I like him. I guess we've probably swallowed different propaganda.
- cobrausn 14y ago
  I tend not to swallow propaganda - I generally just dislike his behavior from the stories I've heard, from both friend and foe alike. He basically talked Manning into putting himself in the brig so he can go be the hero. I'm sure Manning was rotting in a cell while Assange was off having the sex (consensual or otherwise) that put the whole operation in jeopardy. I don't like him. Maybe that's all propaganda, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my take on it. His work is necessary but I don't like him. Besides, look at that smug face. It's seriously in the running for a 'most punchable face alive' award.

dj2stein9 14y ago

The UK government is showing its true face, that of a tyrannical authoritarian government, who's legitimacy is threatened by the exact kind of transparency that Assange's organization intends to protect.

Old_Faithful 14y ago
When was there even any doubt about it? Britain has been aligned with US imperialism for decades.

nickperry 14y ago

Why does Ecuador even want to stand its ground on this? Why do they want to harbor Assange in the first place? Seems silly to escalate this to the national level when they don't seem to benefit from it in any material or practical sense.

koski 14y ago
I'm no pro in politics but what I have read Ecuador has pretty strong relationship with Venezuela. And at least the later one is happy to get USA "angry" when possible.
mike-cardwell 14y ago
So countries should only respond to requests for asylum when they themselves benefit from it? The only thing that they should be looking at, is whether or not his case for asylum is valid under their rules.
- nickperry 14y ago
  Touche
cjensen 14y ago
South American countries tend to lurch from right to left and back. Currently Ecuador has elected to be governed by their anti-American leftist party. I would be shocked if they didn't grant Assange asylum just for the sake of pretending to save Assange from the US, if for no better reason.

youngtaff 14y ago

About time we started applying the pressure... Assange is taking his supporters for a ride, if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions? As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused' The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer? Ship Assange out, if not Sweden then Australia, he's taking the piss (to use an UK colloquialism) and lots of people are falling for his conspiracy theory rubbish.

anaheim 14y ago
I know I'm going to get downvoted like hell for this, but.. In short, because Sweden is a feminist-dominated country which would love nothing more to lock up Assange for life and throw away the key because a couple of women regretted sleeping with him afterwards. Seriously, they are trying to prosecute him not for rape but for something called "unexpected sex" http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/assange-rape-accuser-c...
TallGuyShort 14y ago
>> if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions? If he's not guilty, AND this isn't politically motivated, why not just go back? If this is actually politically motivated, then your question is fundamentally no different from "if you're not a terrorist, why don't you just submit to wiretaps / TSA body scans / etc..." If I was him and I was innocent, I would probably not expect to face fair questions if I went back. The being said, I know almost nothing about the Swedish government so maybe I am being too much of a conspiracy theorist.
- elemeno 14y ago
  Sweden is part of the EU and any extradition from Sweden to the US would have to permissible under EU Human Rights laws, which specifically deny extradition if the extradited person could be subject to the death penalty if found guilty of the accusations they're being extradited for. Given that the US has filled no charges against him, made no extradition requests to Sweden or the UK, and that there seems to be a fair degree of legal consensus that the European Court of Human Rights would deny extradition for the sort of charges that the US could plausibly file against him it seems to me that to believe that Assange has credible reasons to try and avoid obeying the request that he attend questioning in Sweden for what would be considered fairly serious accusations in most western countries is to buy into a conspiracy theory.

belorn 14y ago

Its interesting that around all this talk about rape allegation, no actually allegation was made by the suggested victims called so by reporters. The two women were seeking advice on the possibility to force Assange to take a STD test after unprotected sex, and a prosecutor independently decided to start the prosecution after reading the report. One of the victims has gotten so tired of it all that she now refuses to testify, and refuses to sign any old statements she made in regards to the whole affair. The other woman, as far as I know, has left the country. If in a fantasy world this would go to trial in Sweden on rape charges, it would be unlikely to see either one of the two "victims" in court.

anaheim 14y ago

A few facts about the case: * The "rape" case against Assange is basically made up, with both of the women he had sex with sending celebratory texts after the events. http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/ http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange... * Feminist-biased Sweden = possible long sentence for Assange. * Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extraditi...), which means there is a possibility he can be shipped out to the US. * The US has extremely intelligent politicians (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sarah-Palin-demands-Julian-Assange-hunted-like-Al-Qaeda-terrorist.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sa...) who demand that Assange be hunted down like a terrorist. Is it a surprise he doesn't want to "go back to Sweden to face the charges"?

AManWithOpinion 14y ago

It is important to notice that when someone started shooting from Libyan embassy in the 80s and killed a British policewoman the UK's government did not enter the embassy. However, now in a case of far less importance(basically a case whether a condom broke on its own or did Assange do it on purpose) they consider doing it? Something is seriously not right here.

koski 14y ago
I undertood that because the event (shooting + aftermatch) happened, the "Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987" was created. Which is now used by Brittish government.

tokenadult 14y ago

How rapidly people forget their history. Britain has a specific law on the subject because of an incident that occurred in Britain within my memory, a shooting of a police officer from within the grounds of the Libyan embassy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher No, harboring Julian Assange is not just like shooting at police officers outside the embassy, but preventing the host country from continuing to follow the steps of its agreements about accused defendants with another country is also not the normal activity of a diplomatic representative. There is a long tradition of dissidents seeking asylum in foreign embassies, and that tradition seems to be longest in Latin America, but that can also have consequences for the embassy's relationship with the host country. AFTER EDIT: By the way, it has been a very, very long time (since before I was born) since the United States federal government has imposed capital punishment for the crimes of treason or espionage (which, yes, could be a basis for capital punishment under federal law). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government#Earlier_civilian_executions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unite... http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00076.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... Nowadays, it is routine for persons who revealed secret information to the harm of the United States to be imprisoned, sometimes for a term of years rather than for life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies#Americans_convicted_of_spying_for_foreign_countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies#American... Simply put, even IF Julian Assange were to have to leave Sweden after going from Britain to Sweden for questioning, and even IF Julian Assange were then charged with espionage by the United States, and even IF he were then convicted of espionage, it is quite doubtful that Assange would be executed. Most likely, he would just (if ALL of the hypothetical events happened) end up spending a lot of time in the Supermax prison in Colorado. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Florence_ADX#Inmate_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Flo...

elemeno 14y ago
And the world tends to have different views on requesting asylum due to political persecution vs requesting it to avoid accusations that you've committed a fairly serious criminal act.

thom 14y ago

What appears to be the text of the communication: http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/2012/carta-britanica.pdf http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/201...

mkramlich 14y ago

So it appears that both the UK government and the Swedish government have lost moral authority due to their behavior on this issue. And if they violate the Ecuadoran embassy that could be considered an act of war. At the least a cause to cease diplomatic and trade relations. If Sweden truly just wanted to question Assange, they could do it via mail, email, phone, video chat or of course an in person meeting in the UK. All of which I believe Assange has already offered to do. But they've declined. Which means that Sweden/UK/USA's actual goal is something other than simply questioning him. It's a fact that he's neither been convicted or even charged with any crime (IIRC), especially not with respect to the supposed sexual "assault" incidents, which look like he-said/she-said instances at best, and a frame-up at worst.

youngtaff 14y ago
Since when has the 'accused' had the right to tell law enforcement agencies when and where they may be questioned?
- delinka 14y ago
  Without charges (i.e. being placed under arrest) he has every right to freedom of movement. Ergo he can answer (or not answer) questions wherever he damn well pleases. If that's so inconvenient for law enforcement, charge the fucker and arrest him. I don't understand why it's gotten to this point- you charge and arrest him ... or GTFO.
  - eurleif 14y ago
    He was arrested, and his extradition was ordered. Then he sought asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy. That's what this is about.
    - delinka 14y ago
      Had he remained under arrest, how could he have sought asylum with some other embassy? "Mr. Copper, I've decided to seek asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy..." "Well, Mr. Assange, I sure hate to see you go but I guess I'll drive you there myself."

objclxt 14y ago

I strongly advise anyone who isn't familiar with English law (so, you know, most people here) to actually read what lawyers have to say about the matter. There is a very good legal analysis here: http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the-uk-withdraw-diplomatic-status-from-the-ecuadorian-embassy/ http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the... Whenever I see a story here about Julian Assange I just sigh. I don't understand how on the one hand people can be absolutely appalled when stories about sexism at conference, in the workplace, etc etc come along and then take the sort of attitudes we see here. Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women. These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this. Maybe, just maybe this is a big fit up from people 'out to get' Assange. But you also have to concede that both the simplest explanation, and one not beyond the realms of possibility, is that these women are genuinely making these accusations. They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition. Most people accused of what Assange does do not have the luxury of fleeing to a foreign embassy. I don't see why it is so controversial that Assange should go and face these allegations. Supporters of Assange really can't have their cake and eat it.

vidarh 14y ago
For starters, the women did not make these accusations. A prosecutor have. This distinction is worth making. At no point did these women go to the police and claim that Assange had raped them - not even the Swedish prosecution has made the claim they did. They did go to the police and ask questions that someone at the police then decided to interpret as indicating that a crime might have taken place, and start an investigation. They then were interviewed, in situations that subsequent reports indicate may have been blatant violations of police procedure - no recording was apparently made, one of the police officers involved was allegedly a friend of one of the witnesses. The results were statements that have not been formally released, nor been verified or scrutinized by anyone independent. What is allegedly the police reports were on the other hand illegally leaked to a Swedish newspaper, and Assanges name was confirmed by authorities in conjunction with the case in blatant violation of Swedish police procedures. But we don't even know if the leaked police reports are accurate or final copies. Subsequent to the investigation, the first prosecutor to get involved in the case looked at the police reports and decided they indicated that no crime had taken part. What is allegedly descriptions supported by the contents of these statements was then used in the arrest warrants formulated by a second prosecutor that stepped in in a highly unusual move and reopened the investigation. The reasons for why she stepped in to reopen just this case, despite how unusual it is to do so when another prosecutor has closed the case, has not at any point been explained. In retrospect, it is now also being alleged that one of the women is refusing to sign statements about the case at all. In other words, so far we don't even know what the women actually said to the police. What we know is the content of a highly unusual and highly illegal leak to a Swedish newspaper, and how one prosecutor has chosen to interpret their words in an arrest warrant written with the express purpose of ensuring that a UK court would extradite Assange to the UK. We do know one prosecutor found the police investigation had not found any evidence that any crime had taken place at all, and another found it did. We do know there are a lot of open questions about how the statements were collected, and about lack of documentation. We do have reason to question whether at least one of the women is willing to put her name behind the police interpretation of what she said. We don't know whether they made any actual allegations that amount to any crimes. Maybe it is all accurate, and perhaps he is guilty. But it isn't even remotely clear whether or not there even should be a case to answer. > They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition. That is true, and it is not surprising that UK courts ordered the extradition. But the real issue here is also not whether there is a genuine reason for a UK court to approve an extradition, but whether or not there is something going on that gives reason to be concerned that these accusations are not the full story. Especially in a case where the Swedish prosecution have had a year or so to interview him in London, yet have chosen not to while claiming they can't. At the same time, somehow Swedish police has been able to go off to Poland to interview two suspected Polish murderers about a double homicide. So either Swedish police has just risked messing up a double homicide case, or the Swedish prosecutor in the Assange case is at best misinformed about something she ought to know about, at worst being intentionally deceptive. Even if we don't buy the US extradition idea, this is still a strange situation. The argument that they somehow need him on Swedish soil is nonsense - Swedish police provably regularly conduct interviews outside of Sweden, and you can provably be charged and tried in absentia in Sweden, despite many claims to the contrary. So why does the Swedish prosecutor resist taking up evidence in a rape case for a year while making claims about why she is not that can not be supported by fact?

x03 14y ago

I'm a little surprised by the HN crowd's desire to turn this into some kind of Michael Bay movie with diplomatic explosions left, right and centre: the phrase "act of war" is being dropped around as if some kind of violent confrontation would ever actually occur between Ecuador and the United Kingdom based on this. This is simply not the case; at most, it would be loosely unfair of the British government to 'bully' Ecuador into its bidding and they would protest as harshly as they could (not very). This is not a fair system; international relations is a system wherein "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"[1]. The Government here has advised that under through a sound legal process it may revoke the legal status of an instituion within and on its territory. Is this right? Well, it's a little unusual...alternatively, ignoring the interests and desires of Sweden, the European Union and the United States would be still further unwise for the British. Britain has its interests, and it must do what serves them best. In this case, doing something less than usual is worth it: there's virtually no downside to upsetting a small Latin American country in the process. The British government just won't care. It's not fair, but for better or worse, that's that. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides

caf 14y ago
Yes. The most likely result is a tit-for-tat expulsion of ambassadors, followed by a quiet re-establishment of diplomatic ties in about a year's time.
Steko 14y ago
"In this case, doing something less than usual is worth it: there's virtually no downside to upsetting a small Latin American country in the process. " Let's analyze this a bit further... Next time a British citizen holes up in the British embassy over some sham charges at the hands of the local police what are the likely aftershocks of Britain bullying Ecuador over Assange.

Zenst 14y ago

I some how now expect loads of people turning up in anonymous masks outside the embassy with a group of people leaving also in aformentioned masks. There then ensues a combination of the Thomas Crown Affair and a Benny Hill sketch. Now that possible outcome aside I do wonder if there are more important clear-cut cases of people in the UK wanted for questioning regarding crimes in Switzerland. I'm tending to think that if there was then that would of been made very public already and yet I have seen none. If he is in all effect Sitzerlands number one criminal suspect or wanted criminal in the UK and who's location is known then maybe this isn't as biased with regard to pursuit than any other case and only with the News value is it publicly deemed more impacting. But thats not realy the issue, the issue if he ends up being shipped to America and lost in a maze of prisons that is the issue realy as if there was a case against him then America would of been granted a extradition from the UK, that did not happen. Now if that happens in Switzerland then that is the concern and the real issue and in that you can respect Mr Assange's concerns upon that matter and why he is taking the approach he is currently as that whole assurance has not been given that it will not happen. If he had that assurance then from my understanding is that this would not be an issue and in the news today. It is this that makes things concerning in how things are being possibly being handled. RIP Yvonne Fletcher, justice was slow, but we do get there.

cyrus_ 14y ago
Based on Twitter chatter, Anonymous is indeed gathering supporters in Britain outside the Ecuadorian embassy as we speak.

cypherpunks01 14y ago

It appears that the livestreaming site bambuser.com is down after a British fellow started streaming from outside the embassy and it was picked up by wikileaks on twitter: http://twitter.com/alburyj http://twitter.com/alburyj http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj

grandalf 14y ago

In 2012 a journalist is persecuted in this way. I never would have expected this to happen.

andyl 14y ago

This looks like a raw smear against Assange. Would be interesting to know the political pressures being brought to bear on the Swedish prosecutor's office.

voodoochilo 14y ago

this is an outrage!

rbanffy 14y ago

I think we are about to witness the only real rape in this whole sad story.