Slashdot Mirror
UK Authorities Threaten To Storm Ecuadorian Embassy To Arrest Julian Assange
paulmac84 writes "According to the BBC, the UK have issued a threat to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy to arrest Julian Assange. Under the terms of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 the UK has the right to revoke the diplomatic immunity of any embassy on UK soil. Ecuador are due to announce their decision on Assange's asylum request on Thursday morning."
Because they are really bothered about that possible rape charge against him.
Impressive. I think this is the first time I've heard anyone threaten to storm an embassy. I haven't even seen the Chinese do this. Note to everyone: this is what happens if you threaten to thoroughly upend the balance of power, expose secrets everywhere, and generally fuck with people in power. If you do this, you better make sure you have an equally strong power backing you. Otherwise, you will spend the rest of your life in jail, regardless of whether you actually broke any laws.
On the upside, props to Assange. I don't think he saw this coming, but I do think that what he did was a service to the world.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The inviolability of an embassy is critically important to diplomatic relations. If British police set a precedent here, it will cause embassies around the world to militarize, causing tension. I hope it's just a hollow threat made by some idiot who doesn't understand the situation properly.
Yes, how very civilized of you, Britain. The "I'm right because I have more guns" position has made us Americans so many friends internationally. I'm sure diplomats and foreign dignitaries will be thrilled to hear that you're going to storm their embassies.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I wouldn't say his crimes warrant a major diplomatic incident. Unless there's actually something to what he's been saying all along...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Here is the message that I've sent to David Cameron this evening,. If anyone else feels strongly about this and wishes to use my text, please feel free. You can reach him here.
Dear Mr Cameron,
I have read reports in the international press this evening, citing Ecuador's Foreign Minister, that the UK is considering entering the London Embassy of Ecuador without Ecuador's permission in order to arrest Mr Julian Assange, who is seeking refuge there.
I strongly urge the UK not to take this action, which would be a violation of Article 22 of the Vienna Convention. It would set an ugly precedent that would not be lost on other countries. Historically, the UK has valued the rule of law. When the UK contravenes international law, it sends a very unfortunate message to other countries who do not value the rule of law. That message is: "you, too, can ride roughshod over international law".
If the UK enters the Embassy of Ecuador without permission I predict that other countries will use this chilling precedent to do likewise, perhaps against a UK embassy.
Please seek a peaceful agreement with Ecuador.
They didn't even storm the Libyan Embassy when a Police officer was murdered from the Embassy itself back in (you guessed it) 1984.
The British surrounded the Embassy for 11 days, after which the Libyans reciprocated - and that is the appropriate response. Perhaps with other LatAm countries in solidarity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
There have been rumors of smuggling him to the airport in a diplomatic limo, or hiring him as a diplomat, but those are not practical and the UK could detain him once he left the embassy grounds. So why bother storming the embassy?
A diplomat's vehicle is considered sovereign land because it can contain diplomatic wires. Most countries would consider removing anything, or any person, from a diplomat's vehicle an act of war, the same as if they'd broken into the embassy. Now they might not exchange bullets over the matter, but you can be assured that diplomatic relations between Britain and many other countries will be harmed considerably. If they do this, nobody will trust them with their embassies again... I mean, if they're willing to storm an embassy and in the process compromising the national security and highly classified diplomatic wires of another government, violating the treaties signed between the two governments, all to to capture a guy for revealing low-level intelligence of a wholly separate government... Well, Britain simply won't be trusted after that for a long time.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I think you put half the world into a nutshell with that last paragraph. How dare we ask for information, and after being denied, deceived and abused, actually take it. And yet so many people think these leaks are somehow more unpatriotic than waging illegal wars that produce millions of casualties, lying and spying, parasiting the economy with Haliburtons, Blackwaters and endless dead-end military contracts while we watch the collective IQ of the US dissipate as quickly as the smoke on the 4th of July.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
He didn't even do anything!! He owned a site which released documents that everyone had a RIGHT to see. Just because a document is classified doesn't mean the public shouldn't be aware. He shouldn't be arrested or in trouble, he should be thanked for releasing information that frankly is everyone's business.
No matter if the guy has raped that Swedish girl or not, - that's not the main point, for that "rape story" has become an excuse for UK to take action on behalf of Uncle Sam/
By doing so, UK no longer honors its own sovereignty.
A sovereign nation is like a free, dignified person, an entity that takes up action to protect it/him/herself, and has the freedom to do whatever it/he/she wants to do.
United Kingdom, by threatening to storm the embassy of another nation, over a person whom we all know Uncle Sam wants, is no longer a nation which I respect - and I suspect I am not alone in not regarding UK as a dignified country no more.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Under Swedish law, it's not their charges to press. It's the public "Ã¥klagare" (prosecutor) who decides whether to press charges in case of sexual assault. The victims are witnesses, not parts.
As for the speculations that Sweden, its police force and prosecutor are somehow involved in a conspiracy to do all this just to hand him over to the US, that's tin foil hat talk. For one thing, this is Sweden, which is not even a NATO country. The ties to the US are not especially strong. And, if the US had wanted him that badly, they would have just picked him up, and not relied on a country that's known for high integrity and isn't even an ally.. It's not like the US hasn't abducted people before.
But more tot he point, both Occam and Freud agrees that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The simplest explanation is that Sweden wants him extradited so they can, in accordance with their laws, question him. They are not permitted by their own laws to do that outside Sweden, so they need him on Swedish ground.
The UK courts agree with the extradition.
Please, people, take off your tin foil hats and see this for what it is.
People have tried to move people via diplomatic bags before. It's never worked, at least as far as is known (there's one suspected case from Egypt long ago, but it's not really certain). It failed with Mordechai Ben Masoud Louk, it failed with Umaru Dikko, etc. And it especially wouldn't work if you tried it on something as obviously in violation of the Vienna Convention as a car. The British have already made it quite clear that they plan to stop any vehicles leaving the embassy.
Embassies are not magic. Their immunity basically only extends as far as the host state is willing to tolerate them, because ultimately, the host state has all the cards, including the right to expel diplomats and close embassies altogether. The more the embassy tries to f*** with the laws of the host state and cheat the Vienna Convention, the less they tend to be tolerated. And Ecuador already has a less than stellar record with their diplomatic pouches (they got caught using them to smuggle cocaine to Italy once)
We're practicing our labials.
Says wikipedia about the Saigon embassy: "The Americans and the refugees they flew out were generally allowed to leave without intervention from either the North or South Vietnamese. Pilots of helicopters heading to Tan Son Nhat were aware that PAVN anti-aircraft guns were tracking them, but they refrained from firing. The Hanoi leadership, reckoning that completion of the evacuation would lessen the risk of American intervention, had instructed Dng not to target the airlift itself."
The US abandoned the embassy, and only then did the North Vietnamese invade it. Their actions showed an acute awareness of it being off-limits. Whether they would have invaded it if it had not been abandoned is an alternate universe question.
There's one hell of a lot of tradition behind leaving embassies and ambassadors alone, stretching way back to the middle ages at least.
Infuriate left and right
Their diplomatic protection can't be legally lifted without granting them safe passage to Ecuador and that includes Assange if he is given Asylum.
Wow. Until now I was on the edge on whether Assange really faced extradiction to the USA and lots and lots of pain coming his way there. Now I am convinced that he was right all along. You don't storm embassies and revoke diplomatic immunity for two counts of non-consensual intercourse.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org