Police enter Ecuadorian embassy building

www.guardian.co.uk...

Twitter is alive with calls to occupy British embassies.

The calls to protest the British government's declared intention to arrest Assange are starting to mount up from various, if predictable, quarters.

Michael Moore, the film director, has posted on Twitter urging people in London to demonstrate outside the embassy.

Meanwhile, my colleague Adam Gabbatt points out that Occupy Wall Street are calling on people to take part in a 24/7 occupation of the British consulate in New York. They write on Facebook:

We applaud Ecuador's decision to protect Assange, and are satisfied with their assurance to do their best to Protect Assange. We move our fight to the clear aggressor here, ie. Britain.

As a British person, I fully support these protests against the corrupt Uk government and their cowardice by sucking up to the USA.

We need to grow some balls and tell the Yanks to stick it. Shame on the Australian government too.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by FFS4000
This is so wrong on so many levels, if we go in we are technically invading another country.

No, it isn't at all. The Embassy remains British territory at all times.

And you can bang on about being ashamed to be British all you want, but we're simply just following the law regarding his arrest. The Swedes issued the arrest warrant for an offence committed in their country, we are simply responding to said request. If we didn't, it throws the whole extradition system in Europe into doubt. I know it is fashionable to assume Assange is innocent, but if he was then surely it should be a simple case of proving it. He could never be deported from Sweden to the US anyway, as the European Convention on Human Rights would prevent it, as he would be facing a possible death sentence or unfair trial.

As it stands, he has done a runner while on bail and not only abandoned those who supported him while fighting extradition, but also brought the Embassy itself into disrepute. The international convention dictating such things as Embassies is quite clear, Diplomats must respect the host countries law. They may be immune from prosecution, but that doesn't mean they can break the law, which is what they are doing by assisting an offender. As a result, they can all be declared PNG and the embassy have it's privileges removed.

I guess those British and American spies who hid in the embassies from the old Soviet union might disagree with you.... frankly, I think you are wrong ince you only quote opinion and not linked facts!

so all that crap about embassies being "soverign" lands doesn't count when Amerika and Britain demands are not met...

if you have evidence post it not opinionated dribble!

This is quite an interesting link. It is the translated transcripts of the police report on the "assault" perpertrated by Assange. Now you can read and make your own mind up. www.nnn.se...

I love how all the protesters get pulled away and some arressted. They should all protest from within the embassy. Hang their posters out the window!

I'm not sure if any atheletes from Ecuador won a medal, but it would be classic if they gave them back (even though its an IOC thing, not England) because they feel tainted with how they are being treated, as the embassy is pretty much tier soil. (When Australia's Embassy got bombed in indoneias years ago i felt a little ill).

Anyway, i guess this is about to get interesting. i mean as soon as he exits the door he'll be jumped upon. I can't see how they'll change there opinions. I mean they must have had an almighty dicussion about getting the balls to just march over and demand this and demand that. I can't see that effort taken back, making them look like bigger fools then they are.

Has the PM had words to the media since from both sides? (I know Australia has no opinion other than what the UK and US and SW Governments want).

Updated: 10:13 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012 | Posted: 10:13 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012

Sweden summons Ecuador's ambassador

www.journal-news.com/ap/ap/social-issues/ecuador-decision-on-assange-asylum-due/nRCd9/

The Associated Press

LONDON —

The Swedish Foreign Ministry says it has summoned Ecuador's ambassador over the Latin American country's decision to grant WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange asylum.

The decision to grant Assange asylum may interrupt British efforts to extradite the Australian ex-hacker to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on sexual misconduct allegations. Assange is currently hold up in Ecuador's embassy in London.

Stockholm Foreign Ministry spokesman Anders Jorle said Thursday, "We want to tell them that it's inacceptable that Ecuador is trying to stop the Swedish judicial process."

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Thanks Woodward, have downloaded and will be interesting reading this evening!

Just what I was hoping for!

What makes me laugh is if he was a banker, or some high-up Corporate on the right side of the coin, this would have been discovered, fixed and returned to normal the following day, and the world be none the wiser.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
This is no misstep for Obama. The US is after Assange, because they want his sources. Even an idiot, should realise that.

edit on 16/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

I really think it is. Yes, of course I realize that the US is after Assange. And I think that obama is going after him at the expense of ..maybe...everything the US is supposed to stand for.

And I don't think that's wise.

It isn't wise to make your allies look like lapdogs.
It isn't wise to make yourself look like you don't care about the rule or law, or that you 'use' your allies.

What does Obama have to gain from this? THIS is grandstanding. It's not about getting Assange. If they wanted to "GET HIM" they would let him "GET" to Ecuador and then kidnap him or kill him, if that's what they wanted - directly, for themselves, not make the UK out to be the lapdog in the catch 22 situation.

Obama will probably get away with it though, so in that way, and that way only, could this be construed to look good for him. If he can avoid direct responsibility.
Oh heck though - there's still people that believe that all this is over the lack of a condom with a consenting partner, and that Assange is paranoid to think anyone's 'after' him.

www.hrw.org...

Originally posted by hadriana

I really think it is. Yes, of course I realize that the US is after Assange. And I think that obama is going after him at the expense of ..maybe...everything the US is supposed to stand for.

Obama doesn't care about anything that the US stood for, never did.

Did you miss the part, where he gave the people "the finger" during his election night, speech? I know it was subtle, and he was just "scratching" is lips ... with his middle finger ...

It isn't wise to make your allies look like lapdogs.
It isn't wise to make yourself look like you don't care about the rule or law, or that you 'use' your allies.

The US took this step, back in 2001 and G.W. Bush stated it plainly and openly, that the UN was of no consequence. He also put Colin Powell on there to lie to them, for a reason ... Colin Powel is the guy who came up to the senate, to lie about Mai Lai incident.

You think "thats" a coincidence?

What does Obama have to gain from this?

Obama has nothing to gain, the man is just another "speaker" with good looks. He's just a tool ... you must try and look beyond Obama.

Concerning your allies being made look like tools ... they are tools. Carl Bildt of Sweden, who is currently the foregin minister. Was the prime tool in breaking up the Soviet Federation of Yougoslavia, to build a corridor betwen the EU and Russia, so that Russia had no influence at EU borders.

You think Carl Bildt "wont" turn Assange over to the US? It's 99,9% guaranteed ...

Your allies, are supposed to think for themselves ... after WWII, many German soldiers were hanged and executed for having done nothing, but obey orders. They were told, that they had the obligation to object to commands that they knew were wrong. And they had the obligation, to think for themselves ...

These rules also apply to your allies ... that they act like puppets, is their own choice.

Wow, ok... So, having read the transcripts posted above I'm now having a hard time weighing this one up... I guess it's worth noting that it's unclear whether this is the only time JA was interviewed and so might not give all the details...

So, first of all he is not wanted for rape at all the issue seems to be about whether he used a condom, or, more specifically, did he deliberately damage the condom he was wearing whilst having consensual sex with his lover. There might be a case to argue that he raped her because he instigated sex whilst his lover (and I believe it's legitimate to call her that as they had had sex a number of times at that point and she wasn't just 'some woman') was still sleeping... However, if that is classed as rape then it looks like I'm guilty, without being crude, I've woken my partner with 'oral pleasure' on many occasions, she rather likes it, but, I guess if it counts as non-consensual then I owe her a massive apology...

The second thing that came to mind is that, irregardless of whether or not it SEEMS like he's guilty he should still be subject to the same process as everyone else in terms of establishing his innocence or guilt. I'm inclined to say, at this stage, that he should be taken to Sweden to answer the charges.

However...

The third thing that occurred to me is this; in the UK we have the CPS (crown prosecution service) and part of their role is to examine cases before they go to court and ascertain whether or not they should be passed to the courts to be dealt with or whether they should be dropped. They decide this based on a number of things such as whether it is in the public interest to pursue the case etc.
One of the criteria (I'm tempted to say main criteria but I don't know for sure) is whether or not they are likely to secure a conviction. If there is a distinct lack of clear evidence then the CPS will say "drop it" and the case is closed. Now, in this case it is painfully obvious to me (based on the transcripts) that is impossible to establish beyond reasonable doubt whether he deliberately damaged the condom, whether it broke accidentally or even if he used one at all. I would suggest that it is HIGHLY unlikely that they would be able to make a charge stick and, whilst I can't prove it, I strongly suspect that, if it was being examined by the CPS it would get rejected pretty swiftly.

I don't know if Sweden has a CPS equivelant but I imagine many countries do, otherwise they'd have to examine every single case using the courts and this would be a very unwieldy and inefficient process indeed.
It leads me to believe that they are pursuing this case as a matter of principle.

Whether that's because he's well known and the justice system likes to make an example of well known people (to demonstrate publicly the rule of law and that 'the system works) or whether it's politically motivated is less clear to me. I'm tending towards the latter though at the moment.

Sorry for the ramble... Just some thoughts...

Sounds like police have not entered the embassy .. but it looks like they might try

This is going to have a domino effect. The Brits are about to make a tragic error in judgment. They will now be setting a precedent that will put embassy workers around the globe at risk. Watch the next time a Chinese dissident wants to defect by running into an embassy. The Chinese troops will now just badge through the doors and do what ever the hell they want.
Unbelievable! and the British members of this forum are constantly proclaiming the US is always pushing it's weight around and I am always saying look at yourselves before you cast the first stone. I guess it's OK for them though. Hypocrisy must be a class requirement over there.

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
This is going to have a domino effect. The Brits are about to make a tragic error in judgment. They will now be setting a precedent that will put embassy workers around the globe at risk. Watch the next time a Chinese dissident wants to defect by running into an embassy. The Chinese troops will now just badge through the doors and do what ever the hell they want.
Unbelievable! and the British members of this forum are constantly proclaiming the US is always pushing it's weight around and I am always saying look at yourselves before you cast the first stone. I guess it's OK for them though. Hypocrisy must be a class requirement over there.

Agreed. I dont see how they can expect this not be used in the future against them. This would be a pretty big breach in diplomacy and will not be looked at kindly by other nations. Granted, the US and Britian probably dont care too much about that but just watch them cry foul in 5 years when some western tourist pisses off the Chinese and flees to the embassy for help.

I think the British government needs to tread lightly here. Assange is a polarizing figure. He isnt some mass murderer that most people want to see locked up.

Whot? NO SAS?#e! i made a gallon of popcorn too./

Not sure if this has been posted - BUT an Embassy in the UK May be entered by Law Enforcement officers.

Following the shooting of Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher from the Libyan Embassy in 1984 the UK Government enacted the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

This act allows for conditions wherein the Police Force may enter an Embassy:

The UK Foreign Office had warned, in a note, that it could lift the embassy's diplomatic status to fulfil a "legal obligation" to extradite the 41-year-old by using the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

BBC News

The Act in full Here

Cheers

Silk

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by FFS4000
This is so wrong on so many levels, if we go in we are technically invading another country.

No, it isn't at all. The Embassy remains British territory at all times.

No it does not. Although in british territory, the embassy is considered Ecuadorian land and as long as the diplomatic mission remain there, Britain have no authority whatsoever in it. They can violate diplomatic rights and act arrogantly but in no country that would be considered an rightful action. Get informed before you write such stupid claims.

Originally posted by underduck
Granted, the US and Britian probably dont care too much about that but just watch them cry foul in 5 years when some western tourist pisses off the Chinese and flees to the embassy for help.

If he had broken Chinese law then, as now, the embassy would be obliged to hand that person over to the Chinese.

It's Ecuador that has contravened the Vienna Convention. Not Britain.

The Swedish Government broke their own laws by disclosing details to the media.

He has offered Sweden to interview him in England, and the Ecuador embassy also invited Sweden to come and talk to him at the embassy, but they (Sweden) refused on all occasions.

Considering it's not even a major charge, and a trumped up charge, and seeing as Assange and the Ecuador embassy have offered Sweden to the embassy to talk, it would appear they don't really care about talking to him, because they know they have nothing on him.

It's just a massive scam to get him to the USA, and the fact they broke their own laws on disclosure and have ignored his offers to interview him in England just highlights that this charge is trumped up and Sweden/USA have an ulterior motive.

Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem
www.scribd.com...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by underduck
Granted, the US and Britian probably dont care too much about that but just watch them cry foul in 5 years when some western tourist pisses off the Chinese and flees to the embassy for help.

If he had broken Chinese law then, as now, the embassy would be obliged to hand that person over to the Chinese.

It's Ecuador that has contravened the Vienna Convention. Not Britain.

I didnt say anything about breaking a Chinese law. Did Assange break a British law? No ... they want to send him back to Sweden. If he was in the Equadorian embassy in Stockholm I can see your point but he isnt.

Originally posted by underduck
Did Assange break a British law?

Yes.

He broke his bail.