UK threatening to arrest assange in Ecuador embassy

[scottish]

http://news.sky.com/story/973139/ass...-asylum-ruling

"Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is expected to find out whether Ecuador will grant him asylum later this afternoon.

The announcement follows a dramatic claim by Ecuador's foreign minister that Britain threatened to storm his country's London embassy to arrest Mr Assange.

Ricardo Patino told a news conference that Ecuador had received a written threat from Britain that "it could assault our embassy" if the 41-year-old was not handed over.

Mr Patino released details of a letter he said was delivered through a British embassy official in the capital of the South American country, Quito.

The letter said: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy.

"We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."

But the British Foreign Office has said in a statement: "We have an obligation to extradite Mr Assange and it is only right that we give Ecuador the full picture.

"Throughout this process have we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law ... We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution."

Ecuador has said it hopes to announce a decision this week, possibly later today, on Mr Assange's asylum request.

The Australian, whose publishing of thousands of sensitive US documents including diplomatic cables and military dispatches via the internet, took refuge in the embassy two months ago to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning for alleged sexual misconduct.

Mr Assange says he fears deportation to the United States, which may seek to try him for his website's release of a trove of secret documents.

A number of police officers were reported to have arrived outside the embassy on Wednesday evening, close to the Harrods store in Knightsbridge, as the diplomatic row blew up."


stupid lol

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why is the British Government acting like a third world state? nobody I have seen supports this action.

[scottish]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-8052991.html

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been granted political asylum by Ecuador after taking refuge in the country's embassy in London.

The announcement will increase the already strained relationship between the UK and the South American country, which has been warned that the situation could have "serious implications" for diplomacy.

The news came after Ecuadorian officials at the besieged embassy, where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is staying, today expressed their dismay that relations between the two countries had deteriorated to such an extent.

Officials laid the blame for the fallout squarely at the feet of Britain, arguing that the Foreign Office had begun using "threatening and intimidating" language when discussing Mr Assange's fate.

Officials in Quito insist that negotiations were progressing over the past few weeks as Ecuador sought to receive assurances from both Britain and Sweden that Mr Assange would not be extradited to the USA if he was moved to Stockholm.

But on Wednesday they received the first indication that Britain was losing patience with the Latin American nation.

Officials in the Ecuadorian foreign ministry were first informed by telephone and then by letter that London could use powers under a 1987 act to enter the embassy and seize Mr Assange.

"That was the first time we were even told about such legislation," said an embassy official who asked not to identified.

The official said tensions were raised further on Wednesday evening when four police vehicles containing around 50 officers pulled up outside the embassy.

"This is absolutely in breach of the friendly and diplomatic dialogue we were holding and we consider it a threat to our sovereignty," the official said.

Ecuador has said it will respond vigorously to any attempt by the UK police to enter the embassy.

They have been receiving legal advice from a British QC who insists that the 1987 legislation could not be used to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy in Mr Assange's case.

The advisor, who has asked not be named, said he believed the legislation was only applicable in instances where Britain felt the safety of the public or national security was in danger.

He gave the example of when the Libyan embassy was used in the late 1980s to shelter the killer of PC Yvonne Fletcher.

Any attempt to enter the embassy and arrest Mr Assange would be a “highly improper” use of the legislation, the advisor said.

[scottish]

This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most subscribed single international treaty in the world.

The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or qualification elsewhere in the treaty.

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.

Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.

The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.

The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.

I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in Number 10.

There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles.

The idea that the 'Liberal Democrats' will or ever have stood up for civil liberties is a laughable notion and the fact it took somebody thirty years to wake up to this fact suggests to me that he or she was fast asleep. The Liberal Democrats after all were the main party that backed the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), something that can see British subjects carted off to mainland Europe without the premise of innocence until proven guilty.

To care about our ancient civil liberties protected by our constitution is a conservative thought, which means the three main parties (including the unConservative Party) are instantly discounted.

[FlyingJesus]

Technically if he's in the London embassy isn't he on British soil?

oh nvm I read it the wrong way around, no he's on Ecuadorian land atm ok so yeah we don't have a right to take him anywhere

[Inseriousity.]

haha quoting scott and making me think 'hang on scott isnt thirty?'

Our heavy-handed passive-agressive is likely to have made the situation worse imo and does perhaps lend credibility to the idea that he is being "politically persecuted."

[FlyingJesus]

[GommeInc]

It's because we have to obey the EU law which demands we deport someone to somewhere else in the EU to face trial. I'm not entirely sure why Assange is being attacked though, is this that rape claim which was made up by the Swedes/US so they can punish him for owning WikiLeaks? The whole event wreaks of US intervention.