Uk Threaten to storm Ecuador Embassy for Assange

gizmo555

getz wrote: »

let us be very clear on this,assange is in breach of UK bail conditions and he can be arrested ,and as it is a criminal offence not a political or civil one, as that the embassy itself has no legal right in the UK to give him political asylum . . .

It's not giving him asylum in the UK, it's giving it to him in their embassy, which is Ecuadorean territory. There is ample precedent for this.

How, for example, do you think the US would have reacted earlier this year to a threat from the Chinese government to enter its Peking embassy to arrest Chen Guangcheng?

gizmo555

cyberhog wrote: »

His high profile status doesn't count for squat. Assange "has caused serious harm to US national security" according to a US senator.

And Robert Gates, then US Secretary of Defense, said in 2010:

“Let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time . . .

“Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought . . .

“Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.’’

But, as we know, governments and politicians hate to be embarassed and that, it seems to me is what's really behind the dogged pursuit of Assange, along with a determination to make an example of him and Manning to other potential whistleblowers.

getz

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's not giving him asylum in the UK, it's giving it to him in their embassy, which is Ecuadorean territory. There is ample precedent for this.

How, for example, do you think the US would have reacted earlier this year to a threat from the Chinese government to enter its Peking embassy to arrest Chen Guangcheng?

there is a big difference between a political crime and criminal acts,assange is wanted on the issue of a european arrest warrant and all EU countries except and agreed to act on them,[even ireland]he was detained in the UK,he then committed a criminal act in the UK, and asked for asylum in the ecuador embassy, for his bail jumping alone he could get a jail sentence ,he is a wanted man in three different countries,the ecuador embassy staff should have known better,the fall out alone could do damage to their country.

Mr_Roger_Bongos

How Assange could leave embassy (but ultimately fail to leave the country)

Laminations

The excuse to not face the criminal charges because he might then face charges on his political crimes is slippery slope stuff. Do people think he won't get a fair trial in Sweden of all places? Do people think they'll simply extradite him to the states? Protest that extradition if and when it happens but to use what you think will happen to protest him facing the current charges is as legitimate as people not paying the hundred euros household charge because 'they know' that it'll be one thousand next year. Total slippery slope reasoning.

If you think he shouldnt be extradited to the US then protest that, but you shouldn't support him in flouting European law

robinph

getz wrote: »

there is a big difference between a political crime and criminal acts,assange is wanted on the issue of a european arrest warrant and all EU countries except and agreed to act on them,[even ireland]he was detained in the UK,he then committed a criminal act in the UK, and asked for asylum in the ecuador embassy, for his bail jumping alone he could get a jail sentence ,he is a wanted man in three different countries,the ecuador embassy staff should have known better,the fall out alone could do damage to their country.

I doubt he's concerned about the penalties due to skipping bail and therefore doing a spell in a UK prison. He did that after all in order to avoid the potentially worse fate of being extradited to the US which is what he is trying to avoid.

karma_

Laminations wrote: »

The excuse to not face the criminal charges because he might then face charges on his political crimes is slippery slope stuff. Do people think he won't get a fair trial in Sweden of all places? Do people think they'll simply extradite him to the states? Protest that extradition if and when it happens but to use what you think will happen to protest him facing the current charges is as legitimate as people not paying the hundred euros household charge because 'they know' that it'll be one thousand next year. Total slippery slope reasoning.

If you think he shouldnt be extradited to the US then protest that, but you shouldn't support him in flouting European law

And what would you say if he was handed to Sweden who then did turn around and put him on a plane to the US? What would your opinion be of that?

20Cent

Laminations wrote: »

The excuse to not face the criminal charges because he might then face charges on his political crimes is slippery slope stuff. Do people think he won't get a fair trial in Sweden of all places? Do people think they'll simply extradite him to the states? Protest that extradition if and when it happens but to use what you think will happen to protest him facing the current charges is as legitimate as people not paying the hundred euros household charge because 'they know' that it'll be one thousand next year. Total slippery slope reasoning.

If you think he shouldnt be extradited to the US then protest that, but you shouldn't support him in flouting European law

He hasn't been charged with anything. This has been repeated ad nauseum.
The Swedes have had plenty of opportunities to interview him, in fact they did in Sweden let him go and dropped the charges! He offered to be interviewed in the UK this was rejected. Why didn't they just interview him while he was in prison?
He obviously thinks that going to Sweden will result in him being extradited or rendered to the US. Seeing what is happening to Bradley Manning and since top US politicians have even called for him to be arrested even assassinated. He has every reason to be worried.

The Swedes should interview him in the embassy or give a guarantee he won't be sent to the US. They won't do wither. He has no choice but to sit tight.

It will be a bit late to protest once he's in the US again look at the conditions Bradly Manning is being held under which are inhumane.

blubloblu

karma_ wrote: »

And what would you say if he was handed to Sweden who then did turn around and put him on a plane to the US? What would your opinion be of that?

Sweden is probably one of the most-respected democracies in the world. They won't simply bag him as soon as he arrives. If and when the US ask for extradition, there will be a hearing which Assange is most likely to win. He should face his charges in Sweden, and then if he wants, fly to Ecuador.

20Cent wrote: »

He hasn't been charged with anything. This has been repeated ad nauseum.

The Swedish legal system is different, if he was at the same stage in proceedings in the UK, he would be charged.

The Swedes have had plenty of opportunities to interview him, in fact they did in Sweden let him go and dropped the charges! He offered to be interviewed in the UK this was rejected. Why didn't they just interview him while he was in prison?

How exactly could they arrest him in the Ecuadorian embassy?

He obviously thinks that going to Sweden will result in him being extradited or rendered to the US. Seeing what is happening to Bradley Manning and since top US politicians have even called for him to be arrested even assassinated. He has every reason to be worried.

The Swedes should interview him in the embassy or give a guarantee he won't be sent to the US. They won't do wither. He has no choice but to sit tight.

It will be a bit late to protest once he's in the US again look at the conditions Bradly Manning is being held under which are inhumane.

By pointing to Bradley Manning's treatment, he has a very good case against a possible extradition to the US. They need consent from Sweden and the UK to extradite him outside the EU, and there are pretty strong human rights protections in place.

golden lane

well, he is giving us a good laugh.......mr clever clogs, what a way to run your life....

maybe he will get a brain transplant soon....

Fratton Fred

20Cent wrote: »

He hasn't been charged with anything. This has been repeated ad nauseum.
The Swedes have had plenty of opportunities to interview him, in fact they did in Sweden let him go and dropped the charges! He offered to be interviewed in the UK this was rejected. Why didn't they just interview him while he was in prison?
He obviously thinks that going to Sweden will result in him being extradited or rendered to the US. Seeing what is happening to Bradley Manning and since top US politicians have even called for him to be arrested even assassinated. He has every reason to be worried.

The Swedes should interview him in the embassy or give a guarantee he won't be sent to the US. They won't do wither. He has no choice but to sit tight.

It will be a bit late to protest once he's in the US again look at the conditions Bradly Manning is being held under which are inhumane.

So Sweden interview him in the embassy, charge him and then what?

Assange doesn't like it and refuses to leave?

Would the interview take place in Swedish or Ecuadorian law?

They have issued an arrest warrant, under eu law, that is all that is needed to extradite him.

gizmo555

getz wrote: »

there is a big difference between a political crime and criminal acts

The difference is often in the eye of the beholder. Chen Guangcheng was convicted of public order offences, although of course many including myself would be of the view that the charges were trumped up. Likewise, given Sweden's documented history of collaborating with the rendition of prisoners by the CIA to Egypt to be tortured there, the suggestion that Sweden would collaborate with the US in a campaign to victimise, vilify and ultimately discredit Assange is perfectly plausible to me.

STOCKHOLM -- The CIA Gulfstream V jet touched down at a small airport west of here just before 9 p.m. on a subfreezing night in December 2001. A half-dozen agents wearing hoods that covered their faces stepped down from the aircraft and hurried across the tarmac to take custody of two prisoners, suspected Islamic radicals from Egypt.

Inside an airport police station, Swedish officers watched as the CIA operatives pulled out scissors and rapidly sliced off the prisoners' clothes, including their underwear, according to newly released Swedish government documents and eyewitness statements. They probed inside the men's mouths and ears and examined their hair before dressing the pair in sweat suits and draping hoods over their heads. The suspects were then marched in chains to the plane, where they were strapped to mattresses on the floor in the back of the cabin.

So began an operation the CIA calls an "extraordinary rendition," the forcible and highly secret transfer of terrorism suspects to their home countries or other nations where they can be interrogated with fewer legal protections.

getz wrote: »

for his bail jumping alone he could get a jail sentence

Presumably Chen Guangcheng could have gotten a jail sentence in China for breaching the terms of his house arrest to go to the US embassy - what's the difference?

blubloblu

gizmo555 wrote: »

The difference is often in the eye of the beholder. Chen Guangcheng was convicted of public order offences, although of course many including myself would be of the view that the charges were trumped up.

Presumably Chen Guangcheng could have gotten a jail sentence in China for breaching the terms of his house arrest to go to the US embassy - what's the difference?

I don't see how you could possibly construe a sexual assault as a political act? Public order offences, yes; rape, no.

A Dub in Glasgo

golden lane wrote: »

well, he is giving us a good laugh.......mr clever clogs, what a way to run your life....

maybe he will get a brain transplant soon....

Quite possible; probably one of the horrors awaiting him in the USA

getz

legally all britain has to do is give a weeks notice before entering the premises and then the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection,so far they have not done so, ecuadores leader has met assange more than once,in a TV talk last may the both joked that he has now joined the club of the persecuted,its a strange bed mate to have ,one against all forms of press censorship,and the other who controls all the media in his country.

golden lane

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Quite possible; probably one of the horrors awaiting him in the USA

i haven't seen that movie yet.....

so long as he is kept out of sight....that will do me.......sick of hearing about him...

karma_

blubloblu wrote: »

I don't see how you could possibly construe a sexual assault as a political act? Public order offences, yes; rape, no.

You are being obtuse, in my opinion deliberately. No one is equating public order offences with rape, what they are doing is highlighting the parallels of each case, ie. both have been granted asylum in foreign embassies.

karma_

getz wrote: »

legally all britain has to do is give a weeks notice before entering the premises and then the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection,so far they have not done so, ecuadores leader has met assange more than once,in a TV talk last may the both joked that he has now joined the club of the persecuted,its a strange bed mate to have ,one against all forms of press censorship,and the other who controls all the media in his country.

And what kind of precedent would that set? Diplomatic convention, build up over years would be squandered.

A Dub in Glasgo

golden lane wrote: »

i haven't seen that movie yet.....

That is because you like things to be kept out of sight

blubloblu

karma_ wrote: »

You are being obtuse, in my opinion deliberately. No one is equating public order offences with rape, what they are doing is highlighting the parallels of each case, ie. both have been granted asylum in foreign embassies.

Yeah, but talking about using asylum to escape justice for criminal acts (which isn't allowed). He is not wanted for a political crime, no-one could possibly argue that.
Chen Guangcheng's offence is much more political. You can't really compare the two.

jhegarty

blubloblu wrote: »

Yeah, but talking about using asylum to escape justice for criminal acts (which isn't allowed). He is not wanted for a political crime, no-one could possibly argue that.
Chen Guangcheng's offence is much more political. You can't really compare the two.

He isn't wanted for any crime.

Just for questioning.

golden lane

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is because you like things to be kept out of sight

people who escape from the law.......yes, of course....

maybe you want to see people get away with crimes.....i don't

blubloblu

jhegarty wrote: »

He isn't wanted for any crime.

Just for questioning.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

Although it
is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that
decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a
decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had
done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal
proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be
viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this
basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.

He has a warrant out for his arrest. He will be arrested by Swedish authorities when he arrives on their territory, they can't arrest him in the UK.

humanji

jhegarty wrote: »

He isn't wanted for any crime.

Just for questioning.

He's wanted for jumping bail, isn't he?

Edit: also, has he not admitted that he's actually guilty of the 4 offences in Sweden, but is arguing that the girls later consented and so the previous crime doesn't count? I don't know if that's right, though. There's so much snippets of info out there, it's hard to tell what's what any more.

getz

karma_ wrote: »

And what kind of precedent would that set? Diplomatic convention, build up over years would be squandered.

its not a new precedent,you seem to forget the foreign embassies in the UK who allowed their buildings to be used for criminal/terrorism activity how soon have you forgot about the young police woman who was shot an killed by someone from a embassy window .then there was the case of the SAS and a embassy,the british had good reason to change the laws of the land, every embassy knows that if they wish to set up in the UK that if they allow criminal activity/or harbour criminals in their buildings,they knew what they were doing by giving this man shelter,so its not good them shouting foul ,its a abuse in whata embassy stands for.

gizmo555

blubloblu wrote: »

I don't see how you could possibly construe a sexual assault as a political act? Public order offences, yes; rape, no.

We don't know any sexual assault occurred. However, as I already pointed out, we do know Sweden's track record . . .

gizmo555 wrote: »

given Sweden's documented history of collaborating with the rendition of prisoners by the CIA to Egypt to be tortured there, the suggestion that Sweden would collaborate with the US in a campaign to victimise, vilify and ultimately discredit Assange is perfectly plausible to me.

blubloblu

gizmo555 wrote: »

We don't know any sexual assault occurred. However, as I already pointed out, we do know Sweden's track record . . .

They'd still need to provide evidence and argue the case in a court of law. It is a concern alright that there might be US pressure on the judiciary (happened in the Pirate Bay case), but Assange has a very good legal team. If he didn't commit the offences, I reckon he will get a fair trial and walk free.

Rascasse

getz wrote: »

then there was the case of the SAS

??? Er, you'll find the Iranians consented to the SAS going in.

Britain will not revoke diplomatic status of the embassy over Assange. Too much to lose for someone else's fight.

getz

humanji wrote: »

He's wanted for jumping bail, isn't he?

Edit: also, has he not admitted that he's actually guilty of the 4 offences in Sweden, but is arguing that the girls later consented and so the previous crime doesn't count? I don't know if that's right, though. There's so much snippets of info out there, it's hard to tell what's what any more.

its certain that at least one did not consent,she alleges she was sleeping and woke up with him on top of her,i think thats the one that is claased as rape

getz

Rascasse wrote: »

??? Er, you'll find the Iranians consented to the SAS going in.

Britain will not revoke diplomatic status of the embassy over Assange. Too much to lose for someone else's fight.

could also be a lot to gain,

A Dub in Glasgo

getz wrote: »

could also be a lot to gain,

Examples?

gizmo555

getz wrote: »

its certain that at least one did not consent,she alleges she was sleeping and woke up with him on top of her,i think thats the one that is claased as rape

"alleges" is not equal to "certain"

blubloblu

gizmo555 wrote: »

"alleges" is not equal to "certain"

That's why you have things called court cases to decide guilt.

Rascasse

getz wrote: »

could also be a lot to gain,

No there isn't. The consequence of breaking the Vienna Convention, using a dubious local law to do so, opens the UK up to reciprocal treatment abroad in the future. Far too risky and I'm sure the mandarins in Whitehall haven't even seriously thought about it for a second.

Laminations

karma_ wrote: »

And what would you say if he was handed to Sweden who then did turn around and put him on a plane to the US? What would your opinion be of that?

You act as if you all know this is going to be the outcome? Well if I was a supporter of the incessant self-promoting twit, I'd protest that extradition.

But I'm guessing your point is it'll be too late by then?

So in order to prevent some predicted dire consequence you must act now because it'll be too late to prevent it if and when it happens? So you support actions based on preventing some predicted consequence that you all know will happen?

So I take it you support an attack on Iran, after all if we were to wait for them to get the nuclear weapons America know they have then it'll be too late?

See how dangerous slippery slope justification is?

EDIT: Before someone intentionally misunderstands my point and thinks I support an attack on Iran I don't - the reason the 'knows' (e.g. America knows) are in italics is because they are dubious claims, presumptions, if America had evidence, I'd expect them to produce it and for it to be properly scutinised (at international level) esp. after Iraq.

If you have solid evidence he will be extradited to the US without trial then present it. Bare in mind he had a trial and lost on his extradition to Sweden.

nehemiah

nehemiah wrote: »

So Ecuador can't set world standards for justice? If such standards exist, who would you like to set them? USA? UK?? Sweden???

The essential thing here is that no country would threaten invasion of a sovereign country's embassy on the basis of a sexual assault charge. There is no doubt of that and if there are any precedents that say otherwise I would be happy to stand corrected.

Could you imagine France invading Irish territory to arrest Ian Bailey? That would go down well...

golden lane wrote: »

you chooses who you like.......i wouldn't choose ecuador.....

i believe thay have been bribed by another country to grant asylum......

as for assange......frankly i couldn't give a damn......

Ecuador's history on human rights is irrelevant. Whethe they have been bribed by another country is irrelevant too. The situation is that the UK are threatening to invade the sovereign territory of another nation for this man. The question is that if that man wasn't Julian Assange would such a situation arise?

I couldn't give a damn about Assange either. The question is one of justice. If the UK are acting in this manner on the basis of the EAW then they will be obliged to follow similarly rigorous procedures for every outstanding warrant. If they do not, they are leaving themselves open to the implication (and presumption) that there is a subservise and ulterior motive to their actions.

Laminations

nehemiah wrote: »

Ecuador's history on human rights is irrelevant. Whethe they have been bribed by another country is irrelevant too. The situation is that the UK are threatening to invade the sovereign territory of another nation for this man. The question is that if that man wasn't Julian Assange would such a situation arise?

I do think they are totally wrong and very foolish to threaten this.

But that is not what is being argued although I do think it is a complete misuse of asylum to avoid facing criminal charges questioning over alleged criminal offences. The rights of Assange to avoid extradition to Sweden is whats being debated.

jhegarty

Laminations wrote: »

I do think they are totally wrong and very foolish to threaten this.

But that is not what is being argued although I do think it is a complete misuse of asylum to avoid facing criminal charges questioning over alleged criminal offences. The rights of Assange to avoid extradition to Sweden is whats being debated.

It's the the deportation he wants to avoid.

He has offered several methods of completing the questioning.

humanji

gizmo555 wrote: »

"alleges" is not equal to "certain"

But has he not admitted to it? The case is about the fact that the girls changed their minds no longer makes it a criminal act, isn't it?

20Cent

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So Sweden interview him in the embassy, charge him and then what?

Then half his support disappears, Ecuador will have to reassess their support of him. What do they have to lose?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Assange doesn't like it and refuses to leave?

As above situation is still the same unless Ecuadorians eject him, still there is more support for his extradition. Swedes have nothing to lose and lots to gain by interviewing him why won't they?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Would the interview take place in Swedish or Ecuadorian law?

I don't know!, its an interview dunno what you are on about.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They have issued an arrest warrant, under eu law, that is all that is needed to extradite him.

Clearly not as he hasn't been extradited.

nehemiah

Laminations wrote: »

I do think they are totally wrong and very foolish to threaten this.

But that is not what is being argued although I do think it is a complete misuse of asylum to avoid facing criminal charges questioning over alleged criminal offences. The rights of Assange to avoid extradition to Sweden is whats being debated.

There is no debate really over his rights to avoid extradition in theory. He had brought his case to the highest court in the land and being refused. However as previously mentioned, there are plenty of outstanding European Arrest Warrants. It's the political motives that interest me more.

I wonder if he had gone through this process in Ireland how it would have gone with him, considering the Bailey case. My opinion is that in the case of Assange and the political pressure from outside forces any precedents would go out the window.

Laminations

jhegarty wrote: »

It's the the deportation he wants to avoid.

He has offered several methods of completing the questioning.

He doesn't get to choose how to respond to a EAW!! Who does he think he is? He goes to Sweden and he faces the questions there, they shouldn't have to accommodate this egotistical fannyarse

golden lane

nehemiah wrote: »

Ecuador's history on human rights is irrelevant. Whethe they have been bribed by another country is irrelevant too. The situation is that the UK are threatening to invade the sovereign territory of another nation for this man. The question is that if that man wasn't Julian Assange would such a situation arise?

I couldn't give a damn about Assange either. The question is one of justice. If the UK are acting in this manner on the basis of the EAW then they will be obliged to follow similarly rigorous procedures for every outstanding warrant. If they do not, they are leaving themselves open to the implication (and presumption) that there is a subservise and ulterior motive to their actions.

the accusations that you make....make good reading, but i don't live in a world of novels.......

ecuador has abused the diplomatic protocol..........what the british government does about that....is ok with me....

i live in the uk....i am happy with the justice system......

i lived in ireland in the 1950s......and i was not happy with the justice system there.....so i moved to the uk....

i did not commit a crime and run away.....and claim asylum....

R P McMurphy

humanji wrote: »

But has he not admitted to it? The case is about the fact that the girls changed their minds no longer makes it a criminal act, isn't it?

Admitted to rape? no

A Dub in Glasgo

Laminations wrote: »

He doesn't get to choose how to respond to a EAW!! Who does he think he is? He goes to Sweden and he faces the questions there, they shouldn't have to accommodate this egotistical fannyarse

lol

There is the real danger that he will be then be subject to political persecution and handed over to the US. Look at the USA's form in all this

A Dub in Glasgo

golden lane wrote: »

the accusations that you make....make good reading, but i don't live in a world of novels.......

ecuador has abused the diplomatic protocol..........what the british government does about that....is ok with me....

i live in the uk....i am happy with the justice system......

i lived in ireland in the 1950s......and i was not happy with the justice system there.....so i moved to the uk....

i did not commit a crime and run away.....and claim asylum....

You emigrated because of the Irish justice system?

Laminations

20Cent wrote: »

I don't know!, its an interview dunno what you are on about.

Would you think that foreign authorities interviewing him should have some jurisdiction?

I notice no one has responded to my criticism of Non Causa Pro Causa?

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

Why are you are happy to apply this fallacious reasoning to this case but not something like invading Iran?

If Assange is sent to Sweden then he'll be sent to America.
Assange shouldn't be sent to America.
Therefore Assange shouldn't be sent to Sweden

If Iran are not invaded they weill develop nuclear weapons.
Iran should not have nuclear weapons.
Therefore Iran should be invaded.

Laminations

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

lol

There is the real danger that he will be then be subject to political persecution and handed over to the US. Look at the USA's form in all this

So we can act now just based on presumptions which are based on form? So you too are for invading Iran?

I've said it already, if I supported him I'd protest his extradition to the US. I would expect it to go to trial in Sweden. I wouldn't presume it as a given and protest anything which I deem as a step in that direction.

Fenian Army

getz wrote: »

its certain that at least one did not consent,she alleges she was sleeping and woke up with him on top of her,i think thats the one that is claased as rape

20Cent

Laminations wrote: »

Would you think that foreign authorities interviewing him should have some jurisdiction?

I notice no one has responded to my criticism of Non Causa Pro Causa?

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

Why are you are happy to apply this fallacious reasoning to this case but not something like invading Iran?

If Assange is sent to Sweden then he'll be sent to America.
Assange shouldn't be sent to America.
Therefore Assange shouldn't be sent to Sweden

If Iran are not invaded they weill develop nuclear weapons.
Iran should not have nuclear weapons.
Therefore Iran should be invaded.

Don't know what you are talking about. The Swedes want to interview him they go into a room and ask questions he answers simples. Answer me this why not just do that? It would strengthen their case, going to this much trouble to get him to Sweden is suspicious for sure. Don't know what you are on about with Iran etc