I don't care where you stand on Assange, what GB is doing sets a dangerous precedent

[cali]

It's truly a wtf moment for me. How stupid can you get? It's pissing me off no end. And for those that don't think the U.S. isn't out to get its hands on Assange, this should be a neon bright clue.

This is a green light for countries to use all kinds of pretexts to attack other nations' embassies.

Not good at all.

[truebrit71]

1. If David Camerwrong approves this it will merely confirm what most have suspected for a long time...

...that when it comes right down to it, 10 Downing St is controlled by D.C....

[HiPointDem]

11. or vice-versa.

[Vidar]

2. Couldn't agree more, cali.

[morningfog]

3. I really really hope it is just a poorly advised bluff.

[struggle4progress]

22. The story was an over-reaction by Ecuador

[morningfog]

24. Cameron warned that they could go in, did he not?

Prime Minister David Cameron’s government could yet follow through on its warning to Ecuador before the asylum decision that it might invoke an obscure British law that would empower it to suspend the embassy’s immunity and send the police in to arrest Mr. Assange.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/world/europe/assange-faces-long-stay-in-ecuadors-embassy.html?_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Findex.jsonp

[hack89]

4. What exactly did the government say? nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Full (translated) text:

We are aware, and surprised by media reports in the last 24 hours, that Ecuador is about to take a decision and proposes to grant asylum to Mr. Assange. The reports quote official sources. We note that the (Ecuadorean) President (Rafael Correa) has stated that no decision has yet been made.

We are concerned, if true, that this might undermine our efforts to agree a joint text setting out the positions of both countries, allowing Mr. Assange to leave the Embassy.

As we have previously set out, we must meet our legal obligations under the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision and the Extradition Act 2003, to arrest Mr. Assange and extradite him to Sweden. We remain committed to working with you amicably to resolve this matter. But we must be absolutely clear this means that should we receive a request for safe passage for Mr. Assange, after granting asylum, this would be refused, in line with our legal obligations.

In that light, and given the statements of the last 24 hours, we hope that you are prepared to continue to engage with the ongoing diplomatic discussions. We continue to believe that a solution is possible on the basis of a jointly agreed text, which would accompany Mr. Assange exiting the Embassy, and leading to his extradition.

We have a further meeting scheduled for Thursday 16th August. Given the statements made in Quito overnight, about an imminent decision, should we take it this meeting will be the final one to agree a joint text?

We have to reiterate that we consider continued use of diplomatic premises in this way, to be incompatible with the VCDR (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) and not sustainable, and that we have already made clear to you the serious implications for our diplomatic relations.

You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy.

We very much hope not to get this point, but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us.

We understand the importance to you of the issues raised by Mr. Assange, and the strong public pressure in country. But we still have to resolve the situation on the ground, here in the U.K., in line with our legal obligations. We have endeavored to develop a joint text, which helps both meet your concerns, and presentational needs.

We believe a joint text and a voluntary surrender by Mr. Assange is the best way forward.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-asylum-live#block-502cd7d495cb03723d6abd04

I think it was unwise to mention the Act. There are precedents for granting political asylum, and allowing the refugee to remain in an embassy for years, and I think it'd be hard to prove they're breaking the Vienna Convention. Mentioning before the official Ecuadorean decision does look like an attempt to pressurize them.

[HopeHoops]

5. Agreed.

[RevStPatrick]

7. For some reason, this reminds me of...

...Ned Beatty's speech in Network.

There are no nations... Mr. Assange has meddled with the primal forces of nature, and he WILL atone!

[oldironside]

8. This is madness.

How can the UK government even think about fucking about with diplomatic privilege? Painful though it was at the time, the Thatcher government did the right thing with regards to the shooting of WPC Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in 1984. Breaking into an embassy in London for whatever reason would set an awful precedent and make us no better than the Iranians who stormed the US embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Little Willy Hague needs to grow up. If he had 10% of the bottle he pretends to have he'd tell the Swedes and the US where to go.

[Wolf Frankula]

10. How Can they?

Because Ecuador is a little country and can't fight the UK. They would not even dream of entering the Chinese, Russian, Japanese or other major country's embassies.

Wolf

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. you just know the US is pushing this response.

[Swagman]

12. The UK cannot legally invade the Ecuador embassy. The threatening letter is a diplomatic

disaster.

The Embassy is sovereign Ecuador soil. Britain has no power to remove Ecuador's sovereignty.

This sovereign right has existed for hundreds of years in countries around the world and been honored.

The UK CAN revoke the Embassy's charter to operate and expel the diplomats but it still cannot enter the Embassy premises.

If it enters without permission then Britain is engaging in an act of war.

Assange and diplomats can live at the Embassy for the rest of their lives because it is Ecuador.

[totodeinhere]

14. There have been several cases in history when sovereign embassies were indeed violated.

It is against international law, but if they decide to do it, who is going to stop them? And yes it would be a blatant act of war, but what is Ecuador going to do, bomb London? I don't think so.

[oldironside]

18. Not London,

but it would have consequences for the UK. South American countries hate being pushed around by colonial powers and Britain picking on a small country would inflame opinion across the whole continent. Mr Cameron needs to remember how precarious Britain's defences for the Falklands are since he sold off the Navy and a large part of the RAF.

This will not be pretty.

[Swagman]

26. of course the UK can do any bloody thing they want and they do

they lie a through their teeth about WMD in Iraq and help blow the hell out of the place and kill tens of thousands of innocents.

do you think anyone is naive enough to think they cannot do what they want?

On the other hand there are consequences.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. No, it's not sovereign soil

The Convention says the premises are inviolable, and immune from search, which is different:

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.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

If they did expel the diplomats, the immunity of the premises would end. That is clear from precedent.

In this case, Ecuador may not even own the premises outright, since they are just one part of a building. Think of it as a private residence for which no search warrant can be applied.

[hifiguy]

13. All of the strings being pulled here

can almost certainly be traced back to the CIA or military intelligence in DC.

[Robb]

15. Not precedent-setting at all.

Read up a bit. Distasteful, but hardly unprecedented.

There's also a lot of misunderstandings about what diplomatic immunity includes, and the authority upon which it rests.

[morningfog]

25. Can you provide examples of Embassy immunity stripping for purposes of raids?

[Swagman]

29. I believe it is an untested statute that came about when PC Fletcher was shot dead

outside the Libyan embassy when an unknown Libyan fired a sub machine gun on demonstrators wounding eleven.

The UK Government withdrew the Libyan charter and expelled the diplomats and they and the killer were safely escorted to Heathrow.

I believe the Embassy was never entered by the Brits as it was owned by Libya and had they put in a caretaker from a friendly Libyan ally.( I lived nearby for 11 years and can recall a friendly dark skinned man who had use of about 4 cars and came and went but no others seemed to be there for years)

Times have changed and I do not know the exact law.

Now the UK threatens to raid the embassy to arrest a man wanted for extradition for questioning.

It shows how much the times have changed.

[Swagman]

27. I prefer to listen to learned British QCs and the former British ambassador

who express total alarm at the Foreign Office's (very un-British) gunboat diplomacy.

No doubt some lowly functionary in the FO will be forced to take the rap.

[cali]

28. yes, it would be. Sorry, but you are flat wrong

<snip>

RT: Some legal experts now say that being accepted as a political refugee is just a symbolic thing for Assange, as it will not prevent his extradition to Sweden. That was recently reiterated by the UK Foreign Office. Has anything really been achieved here?

MW: Absolutely. First of all I mean the UK made a huge mistake, the UK government and Foreign Office, by threatening to invade the Ecuadorian embassy, which is the sovereign territory of another country. This just isn’t done. I mean, I could not even find a case where this was done in the last 60 or 70 years.

<snip>

http://rt.com/news/uk-ecuador-threat-mistake-assange-894/

[totodeinhere]

17. I don't think they will storm the embassy. IMO that is just a bluff.

But what they could do is cut off the embassy's water supply and power just like they threatened to do in Panama to the Vatican embassy if they didn't release Noriega. And it worked. Noriega was kicked out of the Vatican embassy and promptly arrested.

[struggle4progress]

20. The UK's gonna chill a while and let Ecuador think matters thru

Ecuador already lost it once yesterday, by claiming that the UK was threatening to invade the embassy -- which it wasn't

[Swagman]

30. I doubt they would even do that.

and there are laws against such action against anyone. Doesn't mean they will not do what they want but I doubt it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

21. Anonymous have made a statement:

anon2world @anon2world

Dear Britain. Storm the embassy, see what happens. Sincerely - #Anonymous.

[CabCurious]

23. I think Assange is a sexual predator & and charlatan But the UK is being absurd with the threats...

Threatening an embassy is just insane.

[Swagman]

31. you give a whole new meaning to 'sexual predator' that should frighten every young man.

if a man who is invited to a woman's bed (several times) is a predator then we have a problem.

Let alone the fact the women must also be 'sexual predators'.

complicated isn't it?

[riderinthestorm]

32. Agreed. Just really sad. nt

[sendero]

33. Well..

... if Assange has all the stuff he's claimed to have, this would be the time to dump it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. Yes. This isn't about any charges or even about Assange himself. This is about showing us what

happens to people that effectively stand up to them.
K&R