Britain threatens to storm Ecuador embassy to get Assange

Question is. Are Assange going to Ängelholm (Swedish town), or Ecuador.

soundcloud.com...



Free Assange now!

At last something with a hint of conspiracy! When I heard this on the radio last night I though it was a bit odd. Why on earth would the UK government damage diplomatic relations with Ecuador over a man accused of a sex crime in Sweden ?!?!?!? Very damned odd and clealry suggests a hidden agenda.

I mean all the UK gov has to do is put a freaking camera outside the embassy and monitor it to see when Assange comes out. If he doesn't so what! It is a sex crime (with more than a hint of dubiety) not a terrorist plot or a mass murderer.

Found a recorded live stream. No live broadcast at the moment.assange ecuador embassy

It's clearly political motivated. The sex-charge is just a bunch of hot air, that is to hide what the real intentions are against assange. Which is to shut him up for good, or possibly get him executed according to US law.

You can read the story of the sex-charges (or rather; the farce of the broken condom), here:
The Assange sex-farce
that leads to
Article on Daily mail

Read up on that, and make up your own mind.

To me, its obvious a political motivated man-hunt...

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Since when do Scotland Yard and Metro Police work for Sweden? Sweden is not even a Commonwealth Nation for crikes sakes.

If England honors their threat, like the USA - the UK will never be trusted by any world leader ever again. I can see other South American embassies closing shop in the UK if the Ecuador Embassy is stormed. Those South American leaders always unite and stick together when the chips are down.

(and Tony Blair is still roaming free after what his hands has been involved in has done far outweighs anything Julian could possibly do in his life time).

reply to post by Flavian


You say legally they are entitled to, and to a degree they could argue that, but that law also goes against the Vienna declaration on diplomacy, which we are co signatories to. This would set a very dangerous precedent regardless of your feelings for Assange. How would you feel if it was on the other foot and you were chased into a British embassy anywhere in the world and the local authorities just went in and dragged you out, as bsically that is what we are advocating if we go in without permission or use that law to revoke their diplomatic status

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Breaking diplomacy over a broken condom is acceptable then, is it?

Sweden asked for him to be extradited. The British courts found no reason to block the extradition. The Ecuadorians are therefore blocking the British legal system, and - as is stated - going against the Vienna convention.

Who, exactly is breaking diplomacy?

Even if they grant him asylum - and it appears they have - he is still mandated to be extradited from Britain. Is he going to spend the rest of his life in the embassy?

Its a cheap PR stunt, again, by Assange. Its done exactly what he wanted, and got him on the front page of newspapers around the world.

The man is an attention whore. If he was genuinely ever sitting on anything of importance he'd have been dead a long time ago, and if you don't think that happens ask Dr. David Kelly about it.

AHEM. It's not like numerous US politicians called openly for the man to be killed, taken out, murdered.

That's reason enough to think the US wants to kill him for most people, eh?

If a bunch of top politicians got on tv and said they wanted ME dead, I'd be scared.
Another reason why all these tough talking republicans were FOOLS for doing that. You don't DO that. No matter how tough it makes you seem and how much of a bump it gives you in the polls. You don't hop on public TV and call for someone's murder at any cost. We have courts. We have law.

Of course Assange has embarrassed these people so bad they seem to have forgotten that.

Being British I wish the truth were more carefully worded to represent reality.

Any who think that the actions of those in power represents the will of the people they are supposed to represent is deluded.

Government are supposed to represent the wishes of their people. They are supposed to be public servants.
Reality would suggest otherwise and no doubt this action is offensive to many Britain's as it does not represent their wishes.

reply to post by neformore


He asked for asylum and received it, how is that breaking the vienna convention ?

Originally posted by artistpoet
Being British I wish the truth were more carefully worded to represent reality.

Any who think that the actions of those in power represents the will of the people they are supposed to represent is deluded.

Government are supposed to represent the wishes of their people. They are supposed to be public servants.
Reality would suggest otherwise and no doubt this action is offensive to many Britain's as it does not represent their wishes.

edit on 16-8-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

Common misconception of the role of government in a democracy. Governments are elected on the manifestos of the party striving for election. These governments are then elected for whatever the period of office in the country in question. If people do not like the consequences of those manifestos / decisions then they have the opportunity at the next election to register their dissatisfaction.

The reality is that no government in a democracy can truly represent the wishes of their people. In all honesty, people are fickle and this action leads to consensus politics which is when problems really start. Some of our politicians in the UK are rather good at this already (sadly) - they see a popular issue and claim they will do something about it in order to gain support.

reply to post by Flavian


Yes what you say is true.
Manifesto's however are only useful for seeing what promises they will break.

No matter who you vote for the Government always win.

My point being that Governments represent private interests and not the welfare of their people

Originally posted by neformore

Who, exactly is breaking diplomacy?

You are ... the british are.

Any man can enter an embassy, and request a political assylum.

The Equadorians looked at his request, as is international convention. And then they asked the Swedes, to give guarantees that he would not be turned over to the US. The man is an Australian, and he has committed no crime by his actions on information against the US. The US is using force, and are threatening the mans life ... Sweden gave no guarantees they would not turn him over to the US. Sweden also has a reputation of allowing "black ops" to take prisoners in Sweden, to the US. There is therefore a high likelyhood, that they will.

Equador is therefore not hindering a judicial system, they are acting on the premise, that Assange's life is in Danger because of a political agenda.

Sweden however, is a traitor ... they're about to lose a lot of ground in the future.

Especially if something happens to Assange. Then, I'd suggest the Swedish government try to move Sweden to the US ... if they can. Because they won't be safe anywhere else.

And that, is just observation of facts.

Look at a future decline in Swedish economy.

reply to post by artistpoet


Star as i agree (to a point).

The point for me being that all democratic governments have to look after the public (to an extent) or they won't get re elected. However, at the same time, it is totally obvious that MNC's (or TNC's or PNC's if you'd prefer) have an totally reprehensible level of access to and ability to influence political policy.

reply to post by bjarneorn


But he isn't a political refugee and this is where this claim for asylum loses credibility and gives Britain the excuse to nab him from the embassy. Regarding extradition to Sweden, his asylum claim is based on (alleged) criminality. Under International Law, he can't claim political asylum for the charges he is accused with.

As a Brit I wish our govt would storm the banks and arrest the banksters. Who have committed worse crimes than Julian. This is a complete load of crap and I hope Julian manages to get to Ecudor. So he`s a criminel for telling the truth and exposing the crimes of govts? This from a govt that is funding terrorists in Syria?

reply to post by hadriana


Cool story ehh!
Alot of good cables that shook our very foundations right?
Tell me, just who was executed for these atrocities?
Better yet, who was even fired or reprimanded over these?
Yup, nothing happened did it.
Lemme guess, we lost some faith in our politicians right?

reply to post by Flavian


Good points you make.
Unfortunately all is not as it appears
It gets dark and dirty the deeper you dig - as you no doubt are aware

I am just sick of the corruption, hypocrisy and lies, I guess.
Perhaps on voting slips there should be a tick box of no confidence in any of the politicians.

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
As a Brit I wish our govt would storm the banks and arrest the banksters. Who have committed worse crimes than Julian. This is a complete load of crap and I hope Julian manages to get to Ecudor. So he`s a criminel for telling the truth and exposing the crimes of govts? This from a govt that is funding terrorists in Syria?

But what if he actually is guilty of rape? Would him setting up Wikileaks excuse him from this? For me, definitely not - he would still deserve punishment. The point being they are very serious criminal charges that he must stand trial for. Otherwise it is condoning rape (alleged).

The wording of this story changes depending where you read it.
Storm, assault, attack, raid.
I think all they said they would revoke diplomatic status and come in and take him.

I don't think he should use his status as ground to avoid the law. There has been long legal proceedings to decide this and him hiding in an embassy seems like its basically him thinking he's above the law. He shouldn't be above the law because he runs a website.
And if he did sexually assault those women, what ecuador is harboring a sexual predator.