4 ms·

Remember the defence for not going to Sweden for questioning ... it was because if he went to Sweden it would enable extradition to the US (because Assange says

Remember the defence for not going to Sweden for questioning ... it was because if he went to Sweden it would enable extradition to the US (because Assange says the UK cant extradite people to the US despite doing it all the time). Well he never went to Sweden and it turns out that one of the easiest countries in the world to get extradited to the US is ... the UK. No idea why the lies, but so much of the persecution has been self persecution.

mariusor 4y ago
But conveniently when he was refusing to go to Sweden he was not on UK soil, he was in the Ecuadorean embassy which is sovereign, inviolable, and it doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
- blitzar 4y ago
  >But conveniently when he was refusing to go to Sweden he was not on UK soil Except he wasnt. He was Wandsworth prison and later free on bail. For the avoidence of doubt, it is Her Majestys Prison Wandsworth, which is sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK. The case was fought, in person at the Royal Courts of Justice, again sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-freed-on-bail https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange... He fled to the Ecuadorean embassy after he failed to fight extradition and failed on appeal to be extradited to sweden. If the US wanted to file for extradition, the UK had him in custody in 2010.
  - mariusor 4y ago
    Good point, thank you for the correction.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > the Ecuadorean embassy which is sovereign, inviolable Contrary to popular belief, embassies do not become the sovereign territory of the guest nation. https://time.com/5429365/saudi-consulate-sovereignty-territory-khashoggi/ https://time.com/5429365/saudi-consulate-sovereignty-territo...
  - mariusor 4y ago
    You're right. Apparently the status of embassies is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations[1], and its articles dedicated to them only mention the inviolability part: Article 22: 1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. 3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution. [1] https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventio...

mariusor 4y ago

But conveniently when he was refusing to go to Sweden he was not on UK soil, he was in the Ecuadorean embassy which is sovereign, inviolable, and it doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

blitzar 4y ago
>But conveniently when he was refusing to go to Sweden he was not on UK soil Except he wasnt. He was Wandsworth prison and later free on bail. For the avoidence of doubt, it is Her Majestys Prison Wandsworth, which is sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK. The case was fought, in person at the Royal Courts of Justice, again sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-freed-on-bail https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange... He fled to the Ecuadorean embassy after he failed to fight extradition and failed on appeal to be extradited to sweden. If the US wanted to file for extradition, the UK had him in custody in 2010.
- mariusor 4y ago
  Good point, thank you for the correction.
dane-pgp 4y ago
> the Ecuadorean embassy which is sovereign, inviolable Contrary to popular belief, embassies do not become the sovereign territory of the guest nation. https://time.com/5429365/saudi-consulate-sovereignty-territory-khashoggi/ https://time.com/5429365/saudi-consulate-sovereignty-territo...
- mariusor 4y ago
  You're right. Apparently the status of embassies is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations[1], and its articles dedicated to them only mention the inviolability part: Article 22: 1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. 3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution. [1] https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventio...