7 ms·
UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange
- rizla 14y agoI'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
- mindcrime 14y agoIsn'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 agoIt'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 agoFrom 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 agoDo 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.
- flogic 14y agoThere's what you say and what you do. I wouldn't be surprised if they called it an act of war. However, a violent response is highly unlikely.
- mc32 14y agoThey probably would not call it an act of war without backing it up --so I doubt they would. If they did bluff and get called, next time hostilities flared up with Peru or Columbia, they might not be taken seriously.
- caf 14y agoThere's no current legal process against Assange in his home country.
- vidarh 14y agoWhether or not it is legal would be pretty much irrelevant, I'd think - it would be something every regime that dislikes Britain would pay close attention to for the purpose of pointing to the moment they decide they want to pick someone up from a British embassy. I can't imagine Britain would be willing to risk the integrity of its own embassies in that way over Assange. It sounds like sabre-rattling, nothing more. Consider that they did not even try to enter an embassy over the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher by someone at the Libyan embassy - a murder that achieved infamy in Britain. The Metropolitain Police laid siege to the Libyan embassy for 11 days and the government severed all diplomatic ties with Libya. But they did not try to enter. If Thatcher was not prepared to do it, I very much doubt the current government would be willing to deal with the fallout.
- jere 14y agoThis may not answer your question, but it's somewhat related as it kind of did lead to war against Iran (at least that's what wikipedia tells me). >The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, after a group of Islamist students and militants took over the American Embassy in Tehran in support of the Iranian Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
- ryanhuff 14y agoSorry, but which war are you referring to?
- arctangent 14y agojere is suggesting that it led to Iraq declaring war on Iran, as mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis#Aftermath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis#Aftermath
- philwelch 14y agoI can't remember another time when a country used the diplomatic immunity of their embassy to harbor a fugitive from rape charges. We're in fairly uncharted territory.
- droithomme 14y ago"Rape charges" Phil, do either of the women, Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén say the sex was rape?
- rickmb 14y agoThere are no charges yet either. We're deep into "if you repeat it often enough people will believe it's true" territory.
- philwelch 14y ago> The other alleged victim claims that she...woke up later in the night to find Assange having sex with her, without her consent and without a condom. Emphasis added. Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_perils_of_charging_rape.html http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_p... Please note that "having sex with [someone] without [their] consent" is the definition of rape.
- droithomme 14y agoHere are some facts: 1. Neither woman has stated Assange raped her. 2. Assange has not been charged with rape. Here are some lies: 1. The women state that Assange raped them. 2. Assange has been charged with rape. Here is the transcript of the interview referenced in the Naomi Wolf attack article that you have cited. http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2010/12/20/naomi_wolf_vs_jaclyn_friedman_a#transcript http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2010/12/20/naomi_wolf_vs_jac...
- philwelch 14y agoFine. The truth is, it doesn't really matter. I would be ecstatic for the Swedish criminal justice system to carefully consider all the evidence and come to a fair outcome for everyone involved. My concern is that Julian Assange is obstructing this process out of either paranoid delusion or regular evasiveness, and his political supporters are all too eager to support his actions.
- smokeyj 14y agoThey must really want to know if Assange used a condom.
- brudgers 14y agoPrecedent for storming another country's embassy? Sure. Tehran, November 4, 1979.
- rdtsc 14y ago> Isn't that basically an act of war? So. Forget all the legal nuances. We have to answer that question. So what then? So Britain blows everyone the middle finger and declared a war on Ecuador. Just like US invaded Iraq (physically). Who is going to protect Ecuador? Is Ecuador going to suicide its soldiers by landing in Britain to protect Assange? Some Latin American countries will issue a very strongly worded statement and maybe some other countries will say something, and then I bet you nothing happens.
- billswift 14y agoIf 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 agoI 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.
- guelo 14y agoThe 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 agoIt 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.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- alan_cx 14y agoPresumably 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 agoIf 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 agoWell 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.
- elemeno 14y agoIt 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 agoAbsolute disgrace.
- _delirium 14y agoBizarre. 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 agoThe 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 agoTo 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 agoThat 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 agoThis case continues to amaze me. It is like a movie not real life.
- cobrausn 14y agoDid 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 agoIf you walk away with your life you're by definition not a martyr.
- stinnyfregs 14y agoWrong. All you have to do is make a major sacrifice.
- cobrausn 14y agoNitpicking. 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 agoActually, 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 agoI like him. I guess we've probably swallowed different propaganda.
- cobrausn 14y agoI 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 agoThe 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 agoWhen was there even any doubt about it? Britain has been aligned with US imperialism for decades.
- mootothemax 14y agoI 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 agoGeneral 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 agoWhy 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 agoI 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 agoSo, 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 agoIt'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 agoYou are mistaken. Under International law, embassies are on sovereign soil of the guest country.
- jakeonthemove 14y agoEh, 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...
- nickperry 14y agoWhy 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 agoI'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 agoSo 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 agoTouche
- cjensen 14y agoSouth 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 agoAbout 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 agoI 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 agoSweden 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 agoIts 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 agoA 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 agoIt 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 agoI 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 agoHow 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 agoAnd 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 agoWhat 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 agoSo 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 agoSince when has the 'accused' had the right to tell law enforcement agencies when and where they may be questioned?
- delinka 14y agoWithout 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 agoHe was arrested, and his extradition was ordered. Then he sought asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy. That's what this is about.
- delinka 14y agoHad 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 agoI 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.
- rdtsc 14y ago> Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women. He has been under house arrest with access to phone, TV, internet. He even runs a freakin' talk show. Telling the world they can't "question" him is a little dis-indigenous and they need to make up a better reason.
- quink 14y ago> 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. You may have missed this bit in the article, at the very end: "An offer to the Swedish authorities by Ecuador for investigators to interview Mr Assange inside the embassy, was rejected."
- 14y ago
- x03 14y agoI'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 agoYes. 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 agoI 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 agoBased on Twitter chatter, Anonymous is indeed gathering supporters in Britain outside the Ecuadorian embassy as we speak.
- cypherpunks01 14y agoIt 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 agoIn 2012 a journalist is persecuted in this way. I never would have expected this to happen.
- andyl 14y agoThis 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 agothis is an outrage!
- rbanffy 14y agoI think we are about to witness the only real rape in this whole sad story.