Julian Assange Options

[Simon Kirby]

The British Government has threatened to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy in Knightsbridge to arrest Julian Assange who is there having claimed and been granted political assylum by Ecuador. Like all foreign embassies, the Ecuadorian Embassy is Ecuadorian territory and not subject to British law, and yet the British Government are threatening to violate the terms of the Vienna Convention and effectively invade a foreign state's soverign territory to render Assange to Sweden, and in all probability from there on to the USA.

William Hague has threatened the Ecuadorians that he will invoke what he claims to be his power under UK domestic law, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, to de-clasify the embassy in order to arrest Assange, but the act doesn't allow anything of the sort and arresting Assange in the embassy would be an appalling violation the most fundamental principle of international diplomacy, and we'd set the most dangerous precedent for our own embassies and their staff in every other country around the world. If Britain can't lead the way and uphold some basic standards of diplomatic behaviour, who can?

See the BBC story.

[Squelchy]

Somewhat ironic that our police want to arrest a man accused of rape by entering with force.

[Ron]

Why enter? He has to come out some time so pick him up then. Or is that against some law/act?

[Penelope]

Why enter? He has to come out some time so pick him up then. Or is that against some law/act?

He has been granted asylum by a foreign power, ergo he is under their protection, to seize him would be an act of aggression on our part. Discussions were underway when we started posturing and threatened to in effect invade a foreign and friendly country in order to panda to the whim of the Whitehouse. Shame on the British government for rolling over yet again.

[NWNREADER]

I haven't gone into detail, but I have only heard it said he will not be allowed to leave the UK, nothing about invading the Embassy. Certainly they can get him into the diplomatic car, but unless they are going to drive the car direct into the plane at the airport I guess he has to be in UK territory at some stage.
There have been numerous assurances the extradition to Sweden is not a front for extradition to the US, and Sweden has a long history of fair dealings.
I visualise alleged criminals hot-footing it to the nearest 'likely' Embassy very much as used to happen with the Churches of years gone by. Take up residence, then wave to the UK Justice system from the windows.

Can it be right? Forget the individual.....

[Simon Kirby]

Why enter? He has to come out some time so pick him up then. Or is that against some law/act?

Exactly Ron. Any time he sets foot outside the embassy he's fair game, so the police just need to wait - though it could be a long wait if the Ecuadorians are happy to put him up - Radio4 sais there was a Hungarian priest who stayed for 15 years in the American embassy there to avoid arrest.

[Simon Kirby]

I haven't gone into detail, but I have only heard it said he will not be allowed to leave the UK, nothing about invading the Embassy. Certainly they can get him into the diplomatic car, but unless they are going to drive the car direct into the plane at the airport I guess he has to be in UK territory at some stage.
There have been numerous assurances the extradition to Sweden is not a front for extradition to the US, and Sweden has a long history of fair dealings.
I visualise alleged criminals hot-footing it to the nearest 'likely' Embassy very much as used to happen with the Churches of years gone by. Take up residence, then wave to the UK Justice system from the windows.

Can it be right? Forget the individual.....

Apparently the Brits sent the Ecuadorians a note reminding them of the powers of de-recognition in the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, and the Ecuadorians have quite understandably reacted angrilly to the threat.

Radio4 said there's not a compound at the embassy so Assange would be arrestable if he tried to dash from the embassy to the diplomatic car - though I'd have thought it would be quite difficult for the police to watch the embassy closely enough 24/7 so it might be possible for him to get into the diplomatic car. But the Beeb also said that the police could actually stop the car - they couldn't arrest the occupants, but they could lawfully stop it for as long as they wanted, so that's probably not an option for him.

You can't claim assylum as a right, it's not like sanctuary - the foreign government would have to choose to let you stay, and like in the present case, that doesn't magically spirit you out of the UK, you're stuck in the embassy until you come out again - I think having claimed sanctuary you got free passage to a port, and we don't have anything like that in the UK.

All I'm arguing is that the principle of the Vienna Convention that an embassy is the inviolate territory of the foreign nation is an important principle and shouldn't be violated.

[JeffG]

It was suggested in all seriousness on the radio news that they might try to smuggle him out in a diplomatic bag "though that might be impractical".

[x2lls]

It was suggested in all seriousness on the radio news that they might try to smuggle him out in a diplomatic bag "though that might be impractical".

I once had one of those, but she wasn't very diplomatic though.

[spartacus]

.....in order to panda* to the whim of the Whitehouse.

Perhaps we should tempt him to stick his nose out the Embassy doors by wafting some juicy bamboo shoots around the place.....

[pedant mode on]* pander [/pedant mode off]

[spartacus]

If ever there was a time to 'invade' an Embassy and sod the consequences it was when WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot by an 'unknown marksman' who may have been afforded diplomatic immunity. If they didn't do it then over a murder, there's no excuse for doing it now over a very vague report of kiddy fiddling........

[Andy Capp]

If ever there was a time to 'invade' an Embassy and sod the consequences it was when WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot by an 'unknown marksman' who may have been afforded diplomatic immunity. If they didn't do it then over a murder, there's no excuse for doing it now over a very vague report of kiddy fiddling........

I think it was that event which sponsored the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. I don't know if sheltering fugitives is misuse of a mission.

[spartacus]

The rape allegations in Sweden are basically wafer-thin and would not stand up in court (in my expert opinion m'lud). The allegation that he exposed the Americans underhand political games (and lets face it, any Government would be equally guilty) is the issue here.

Should we know what our 'elected' masters are saying in our name? Or should we be kept in the dark?

I cannot say I like Assange. He strikes me as a creepy little sh1t but I will stand by a creepy little sh1t before I will countenance rendition.

I hope they smuggle him out in a jet-ski.

[Timbo]

Somewhat ironic that our police want to arrest a man accused of rape by entering with force.

Oh my LOL.

I think the whole scenario is a bit silly.. I can't understand what the issue is; the rape allegations are obviously not going to stand up to scrutiny, as has been said thus far; and he's just in trouble for alerting the world at large to the truth, what really goes on... ??
... Or is it just about the rape claims?

I just think it's sad the country (world?) has gotten to a point where things have to be like this..

[Weavers Walk]

If ever there was a time to 'invade' an Embassy and sod the consequences it was when WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot by an 'unknown marksman' who may have been afforded diplomatic immunity. If they didn't do it then over a murder, there's no excuse for doing it now

There maybe another reason (according to Channel4, the British Army's senior ballistics officer Lieutenant Colonel George Styles, and Home Office pathologist Hugh Thomas) as to why they didn't go in..

Clickable link

[Shabba]

I don't know if sheltering fugitives is misuse of a mission.

One country's "fugitive" is another country's "persecuted asylum-seeker"....

If the UK hadn't sent a message to Ecuador "reminding" them of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 then maybe Ecuador would not have reacted as they did.

Why can't the Swedes question JA in London? They would then know whether there is a case for him to answer. According to a Swedish poster on another forum, the Swedes do this (travel to other counties to question people) regularly - but apparently not in this case. I wonder why? Is it really justice for the alleged victims that the Swedes are seeking?

[dannyboy]

Sweden is far, far less likely to extradite him to the USA that the UK.

He'd be safer in Sweden than the UK as far as ending up in the USA is concerned.

[JeffG]

Sweden is far, far less likely to extradite him to the USA that the UK.

Are extradition laws not the same in both countries, then? It's a legal thing, not something a country does or doesn't do because they feel like it.

[dannyboy]

Are extradition laws not the same in both countries, then? It's a legal thing, not something a country does or doesn't do because they feel like it.

Extradition is upto individual countries.

Some countries won't extradite at all, others to some states & not others.

Equador's extradition treaty with the US excludes political cases, so JS would be effectively free in Equador. hence JS decision to ask for asylum there.

A bit like Ronnie Biggs in Spain. ( although Blunkett did a deal in 2001 to end the 'Costa del Crime' )

[Newbelly]

A bit like Ronnie Biggs in Spain. ( although Blunkett did a deal in 2001 to end the 'Costa del Crime' )

I thought Biggs went to Brazil?