6 ms·

He is not in the embassy because of the Brits, he is in the embassy because he fears being deported to the US by the Swedens.

by aylons 12y ago

jamespo 12y ago
Which doesn't make sense, who is more friendly with the US, Britain or Sweden? EDIT: what I'm clarifying is that he's not avoiding Sweden because he thinks they'll deport him to the US, that would have been more likely staying in the UK.
- rbanffy 12y ago
  He has to step out of the embassy and enter the UK before he can go to Sweden.
  - Fuxy 12y ago
    Isn't a embassy car considered embassy territory?
    - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
      He's still got to get from the embassy to the car (remember that the embassy is a two bedroom apartment - it's not got underground parking on embassy soil a car could get into) and then from the car to the plane. A bunch of the newspapers here (the UK) looked into this at the time and the short version was there was no realistic, workable way of getting him out without the UK co-operating.
    - KMag 12y ago
      There's no such thing as "embassy territory".[1] Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterrit...
- frandroid 12y ago
  Either way, he should fear both Sweden and Britain.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  He's in the Ecuadorian Embassy, which is beyond the legal reach of the US, the UK, and Sweden. He jumped bail because the UK was going to deport him to Sweden, and Sweden was likely to deport him to the US, where he'd be Manninged before (eventual) trial. Jumping bail isn't a crime in the UK. It simply means the gov gets to keep your bail money. If Sweden drops charges he'll be free to go, unless the UK can manufacture a pretext for extradition (always possible) or the US sweeps him off the street (also possible, but unlikely to make the US popular with European countries who are already unhappy about being spied on.)
  - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
    It isn't a crime? You should explain that to the Bail Act 1976 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/section/6 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/section/6) amended by the Extradition Act of 2003 because they believe: "A person who is convicted summarily of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above [which outline not attending without good reason] and is not committed to the Crown Court for sentence shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and a person who is so committed for sentence or is dealt with as for such a contempt shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine or to both." The court and / or the CPS may view that there is no public interest in that, though similarly they may view given the cost to the tax payer of the round the clock surveillance of the embassy he should be made an example of. I'd be inclined to believe the later.
  - bobbyx 12y ago
    What law protects him in the Embassy? A few people in this thread are saying that he's not on English soil; that the embassy is under Ecuadorian law. That's a myth. Ambassadors get immunity and international politeness means we don't go raiding embassies[1] but Assange is in England, on English soil, subject to English law, and being in some other country's embassy doesn't change that. [1] unless they hold hostages or shoot our police officers
    - rwissmann 12y ago
- nailer 12y ago
  I believe there was something about Sweden having a covert relationship with NATO, which might mean they might extradite him, vs Ecuador which isn't. Britain doesn't enter the equation because he's not on British soil. That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's happy to do remotely via video conference. If the Swedish prosecutor actually wanted to talk to Assange like they say the do, they could do it today. Also: Aardin immediately invited Assange to a crayfish party after she was allegedly raped. That's really odd behaviour, especially from a well known feminist.
  - jamespo 12y ago
    The link posted above covers these points http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-... and specifically the video conferencing / questioning red herring
  - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
    As the UK has extradited him to Sweden, the Swedes would actually need permission from the UK to extradite him to a third country. Let's also remember, the UK has spent years being the US's bitch when it comes to foreign policy, defence and intelligence matters. I can't think of a single nation in the world who have been more willing to do America's bidding than the UK. It really makes no sense for the US to involve a third party.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > Britain doesn't enter the equation because he's not on British soil. He was on British soil for months while his extradition case dragged on. And whatever "covert" ties Sweden has with NATO (which is not the USA), the U.K. has substantially many more with the U.S. directly. The "special relationship" is a real thing, so if some sort of covert rendition were a real worry for Assange, it would have already happened without needing to involve a Scandinavian nation. > That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's happy to do remotely via video conference. He's wanted for questioning as part of his arrest and formal charge proferring. You can't book people by VTC last I checked; either way, Assange is in no position to unilaterally demand the conditions of his treatment as compared to any other defendant under Swedish law. Does he think he's royalty or something, and above the law as applied to the rest of Sweden? > If the Swedish prosecutor actually wanted to talk to Assange like they say the do, they could do it today. See above. > Also: Aardin immediately invited Assange to a crayfish party after she was allegedly raped. That's really odd behaviour, especially from a well known feminist. Perhaps. If only there was some deliberative process by which a group of persons might decide where that nugget of evidence stacks up in determining whether Assange is actually guilty or not guilty, we could help clear all this up.

He is not in the embassy because of the Brits, he is in the embassy because he fears being deported to the US by the Swedens.

by aylons 12y ago

He is not in the embassy because of the Brits, he is in the embassy because he fears being deported to the US by the Swedens.

jamespo 12y ago

Which doesn't make sense, who is more friendly with the US, Britain or Sweden? EDIT: what I'm clarifying is that he's not avoiding Sweden because he thinks they'll deport him to the US, that would have been more likely staying in the UK.

rbanffy 12y ago
He has to step out of the embassy and enter the UK before he can go to Sweden.
- Fuxy 12y ago
  Isn't a embassy car considered embassy territory?
  - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
    He's still got to get from the embassy to the car (remember that the embassy is a two bedroom apartment - it's not got underground parking on embassy soil a car could get into) and then from the car to the plane. A bunch of the newspapers here (the UK) looked into this at the time and the short version was there was no realistic, workable way of getting him out without the UK co-operating.
  - KMag 12y ago
    There's no such thing as "embassy territory".[1] Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterrit...
frandroid 12y ago
Either way, he should fear both Sweden and Britain.
TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
He's in the Ecuadorian Embassy, which is beyond the legal reach of the US, the UK, and Sweden. He jumped bail because the UK was going to deport him to Sweden, and Sweden was likely to deport him to the US, where he'd be Manninged before (eventual) trial. Jumping bail isn't a crime in the UK. It simply means the gov gets to keep your bail money. If Sweden drops charges he'll be free to go, unless the UK can manufacture a pretext for extradition (always possible) or the US sweeps him off the street (also possible, but unlikely to make the US popular with European countries who are already unhappy about being spied on.)
- Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
  It isn't a crime? You should explain that to the Bail Act 1976 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/section/6 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/section/6) amended by the Extradition Act of 2003 because they believe: "A person who is convicted summarily of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above [which outline not attending without good reason] and is not committed to the Crown Court for sentence shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and a person who is so committed for sentence or is dealt with as for such a contempt shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine or to both." The court and / or the CPS may view that there is no public interest in that, though similarly they may view given the cost to the tax payer of the round the clock surveillance of the embassy he should be made an example of. I'd be inclined to believe the later.
- bobbyx 12y ago
  What law protects him in the Embassy? A few people in this thread are saying that he's not on English soil; that the embassy is under Ecuadorian law. That's a myth. Ambassadors get immunity and international politeness means we don't go raiding embassies[1] but Assange is in England, on English soil, subject to English law, and being in some other country's embassy doesn't change that. [1] unless they hold hostages or shoot our police officers
  - rwissmann 12y ago
nailer 12y ago
I believe there was something about Sweden having a covert relationship with NATO, which might mean they might extradite him, vs Ecuador which isn't. Britain doesn't enter the equation because he's not on British soil. That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's happy to do remotely via video conference. If the Swedish prosecutor actually wanted to talk to Assange like they say the do, they could do it today. Also: Aardin immediately invited Assange to a crayfish party after she was allegedly raped. That's really odd behaviour, especially from a well known feminist.
- jamespo 12y ago
  The link posted above covers these points http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-... and specifically the video conferencing / questioning red herring
- Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
  As the UK has extradited him to Sweden, the Swedes would actually need permission from the UK to extradite him to a third country. Let's also remember, the UK has spent years being the US's bitch when it comes to foreign policy, defence and intelligence matters. I can't think of a single nation in the world who have been more willing to do America's bidding than the UK. It really makes no sense for the US to involve a third party.
- mpyne 12y ago
  > Britain doesn't enter the equation because he's not on British soil. He was on British soil for months while his extradition case dragged on. And whatever "covert" ties Sweden has with NATO (which is not the USA), the U.K. has substantially many more with the U.S. directly. The "special relationship" is a real thing, so if some sort of covert rendition were a real worry for Assange, it would have already happened without needing to involve a Scandinavian nation. > That said, he's just wanted for questioning. Which he's repeatedly said he's happy to do remotely via video conference. He's wanted for questioning as part of his arrest and formal charge proferring. You can't book people by VTC last I checked; either way, Assange is in no position to unilaterally demand the conditions of his treatment as compared to any other defendant under Swedish law. Does he think he's royalty or something, and above the law as applied to the rest of Sweden? > If the Swedish prosecutor actually wanted to talk to Assange like they say the do, they could do it today. See above. > Also: Aardin immediately invited Assange to a crayfish party after she was allegedly raped. That's really odd behaviour, especially from a well known feminist. Perhaps. If only there was some deliberative process by which a group of persons might decide where that nugget of evidence stacks up in determining whether Assange is actually guilty or not guilty, we could help clear all this up.