Police enter Ecuadorian embassy building

No, this has to do with Julian Assange's leaking information about the Trapwire surveillance system set up in multiple countries like the U.S. and the U.K. I was reading all about it on the Russian Times:

Trapwire Tied to White House, Scotland Yard, MI5 and Others

Which, by the way, hosts the Julian Assange show where he has been broadcasting from house arrest.

Assange is one of my heroes, I'll be watching to see if he makes it to Ecuador alive or not. If you watch his videos on rt.com, you can see that he is an honest guy wanting to see corrupt government be taken down.

Not to mention that assassinating him or whatnot would cause a lot of uproar from Russia and its allies.

reply to post by FFS4000


Er, no I am not. Instead of Wiki, read this:

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations .. Clearly states that the territory remains that of the host. It is a common misconception it belongs to the Embassy nation.

And even then, as the host country's law takes precedence, we have Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987

reply to post by stumason


Hey Stu, from your link 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.

I've highlighted the pertinent part

reply to post by FFS4000


Yep, but it doesn't mean it is their territory, as you claimed and that is only a valid clause as long as the embassy upholds it's commitments, which it hasn't by harbouring someone who has broken the law (skipped bail). If the host country perceives that the Embassy is aiding and abetting, they can have their status removed by the host.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by FFS4000

 

which it hasn't by harbouring someone who has broken the law (skipped bail). If the host country perceives that the Embassy is aiding and abetting, they can have their status removed by the host.

Allegedly broken the law... he has not confessed to anything but consensual sex. Skipped Bail is a consequence of him seeking refuge.

I cant seem to justify the amount of effort and resources they are using to bring him to so called "justice".

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing


If he wasn't a criminal before, he is now. Breach of bail conditions alone is enough to get your remanded into custody and is an offence itself. He has breached his bail conditions, ergo, is a criminal.

I really don't understand the rush to defend someone who refuses to even defend themselves.

If innocent, quell problemo? If he wasn't the Wikileaks dude and just some average Joe running from a rape charge, I bet you'd all have a different tune to sing.

Can he get to a church?

I don't think they can touch him there.

reply to post by stumason

if he was then surely it should be a simple case of proving it.

I can see you're serious about this, your patriotism is making you blind.

reply to post by Frankenchrist




You can't claim Sanctuary any more and even back in the day, if the mob wanted you they'd get you anyway.

reply to post by insaan


This has nothing to do with "patriotism"..

I want to know what is so damned special about this odd looking Ozzie that he can skip bail and run from a rape charge into a foreign Embassy. You or I could not expect to get away with it.

In fact, if it was me and I knew I was innocent, I'd hand myself in personally. The last time I was involved with the Police, I knew I'd be arrested yet waited around for them when running was a valid option. It didn't quite pan out as I expected, key evidence was missed by my legal team and I was convicted, but I accepted my punishment like a man and moved on.

At the end of the day, all the Swedes wanted to do initially was question him. A man running from simply being questioned raises many eyebrows.

Personally, I think it is your commitment to believing the guy is a Gift from God for the conspiracy community that is blinding you to the possibility he might just have a case to answer.

reply to post by stumason


But, we all know that he will be on his way to America to face their tough justice just like Manning is suffering now. I for one don't want to see that happen to another person. But I can see your point, just dont agree with it.

reply to post by stumason


Sorry that would have been my bad use of language, what i meant was what i highlighted in the document link you posted, either way international law states that entry only by approval of mission chief, and as JA has been granted asylum, that permission is not likely to come from them

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by stumason

 

But, we all know that he will be on his way to America to face their tough justice just like Manning is suffering now. I for one don't want to see that happen to another person. But I can see your point, just dont agree with it.

The ECHR will protect him, exactly as it protected Abu Qatda (sp?). If he really does face the Death penalty, he won't be extradited. Simples.

reply to post by FFS4000


And like I said, that only works if they have followed local law. The moment they start breaking local law, such as harbouring someone who has broken the terms of their bail to avoid facing quite a serious charge, any privileges they enjoyed can be revoked by the Secretary of State. Once that is done, we don't need permission.

It's funny, I get accused of being "patriotic", yet I am simply being pragmatic. To many though seem to be letting emotion get in the way of rational thinking. Be honest, if this wasn't JA but just some Joe Bloggs, would you be so quick to defend his right to abscond and not face the charges against them?

reply to post by stumason

Originally posted by stumason

Yep, but it doesn't mean it is their territory, as you claimed and that is only a valid clause as long as the embassy upholds it's commitments, which it hasn't by harbouring someone who has broken the law (skipped bail). If the host country perceives that the Embassy is aiding and abetting, they can have their status removed by the host.

And this, of course, applies to all countries? I seem to remember something about a Chinese chap, Chen Guangcheng or something...

Because the law is equal to everyone? Right stumason?

WikiLeaks wants William Hague who is temporarily in charge to resign.

__._/Statement-on-UK-threat-to-storm.html

(...)

We note with interest that this development coincides with the UK Secretary of State William Hague’s assumption of executive responsibilities during the vacation of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Hague’s department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has overseen the negotiations to date with Ecuador in the matter of Mr Assange’s asylum bid.

If Mr Hague has, as would be expected, approved this decision, WikiLeaks calls for his immediate resignation.

(...)

On their Twitter they posted the Iranian British embassy attack last year, and Hague called a breach of Vienna.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/iranian-students-storm-british-embassy

Hague says Iran will face 'serious consequences' over embassy attack
Foreign secretary says Tehran breached Vienna convention in failing to protect diplomatic mission

Saeed Kamali Dehghan and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 November 2011 18.58 GMT

(...)

Hague said Iran had "committed a grave breach" of the Vienna convention, which demands the protection of diplomats and diplomatic premises under all circumstances. He added: "We hold the Iranian government responsible for its failure to take adequate measures to protect our embassy as it is required to do.

"I spoke to the Iranian foreign minister this afternoon to protest in the strongest terms about these events and to demand immediate steps to ensure the safety of our staff in both embassy compounds."

(...)

reply to post by gekko


Not sure how you can compare a pro-democracy activist locked up for his beliefs and someone facing a rape charge.... Needless to say, he left the US embassy and went back into Chinese authority and left of his own free will, not eloping hidden in a duffel bag or however JA thinks he is getting out of this.

That's some funky logic you have there.

reply to post by stumason


I'm talking about the rule of law. I'm talking about the law being equal, wether you are weak or powerful. I'm talking about the pillars of democracy being upheld.

Is that clear enough for you?

Question?
Is the insurance file still Assange's nuke option or has he got something else hidden away? Was the insurance file just a smoke screen?

reply to post by stumason

Not sure how you can compare a pro-democracy activist locked up for his beliefs and someone facing a rape charge.... Needless to say, he left the US embassy and went back into Chinese authority and left of his own free will, not eloping hidden in a duffel bag or however JA thinks he is getting out of this. That's some funky logic you have there.

Your proposing we pick and choose who is worthy of protection under principles already agreed on? Now we're on a slippery slope.

reply to post by gekko


Nice fluff, answer the question, how are the two comparable?

As for pillars of democracy, one of them is a Justice system that is fair for all. How is JA running to to a Foreign embassy to avoid facing charges against him fair? Can we all do that?