UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

by Simon_M • 14 years ago

188 240 14 years ago

bbc.co.uk

mindcrime2• 14 years ago

Isn't that basically an act of war? Or something just short of it? I can't remember another time when one country threatened to enter another country's embassy without an invitation... Have there been other cases like this in recent history??

dailyrorschach• 14 years ago

It's somewhat unprecedented, but has happened in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission

It's important to know that as the article points out Embassies do not enjoy full extraterritorial status, and contrary to popular belief are not sovereign.

The practice of the host country entering only with permission is based in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and a violation of this would likely have no real material effect. That convention also requires the host country to protect the embassy and other rules. It is unlikely that the UK's allies would object, and even more unlikely that the country in question here would mount any serious diplomatic or military response.

As always power benefits the powerful.

k-mcgrady• 14 years ago

From the article:

"The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange."

If they do that it wouldn't be an act of war, it would be legal. It definitely sets a terrible precedent though and even if it's legal Ecuador might interpret it as an act of war.

pbhjpbhj2• 14 years ago

Do you honestly believe Ecuador will initiate hostilities against NATO in order to protect a foreign citizen from due legal process in that persons home country?

It would surely be less effort and risk to lift him from the roof by helicopter and whisk him to a waiting jet James Bond style.

The second option seems far more likely to me.

vidarh15• 14 years ago

Whether or not it is legal would be pretty much irrelevant, I'd think - it would be something every regime that dislikes Britain would pay close attention to for the purpose of pointing to the moment they decide they want to pick someone up from a British embassy.

I can't imagine Britain would be willing to risk the integrity of its own embassies in that way over Assange. It sounds like sabre-rattling, nothing more.

Consider that they did not even try to enter an embassy over the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher by someone at the Libyan embassy - a murder that achieved infamy in Britain. The Metropolitain Police laid siege to the Libyan embassy for 11 days and the government severed all diplomatic ties with Libya. But they did not try to enter.

If Thatcher was not prepared to do it, I very much doubt the current government would be willing to deal with the fallout.

jere• 14 years ago

This may not answer your question, but it's somewhat related as it kind of did lead to war against Iran (at least that's what wikipedia tells me).

>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, after a group of Islamist students and militants took over the American Embassy in Tehran in support of the Iranian Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

ryanhuff• 14 years ago

Sorry, but which war are you referring to?

philwelch24• 14 years ago

I can't remember another time when a country used the diplomatic immunity of their embassy to harbor a fugitive from rape charges. We're in fairly uncharted territory.

mindcrime2• 14 years ago

Fair point. It just struck me that this seems a bit unprecedented.

Flow• 14 years ago

He isn't charged AFAIK.

bluesnowmonkey• 14 years ago

It would be more to the point to say that they are harboring him from espionage charges. We don't have an international incident every time somebody refuses to wear a condom.

mkramlich11• 14 years ago

there are no rape charges. rape != sexual assault. and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape, certainly. also there are no charges. merely an accusation. and they merely want to "question" him, which of course they could do easily without forcing him to go to Sweden. The whole thing is a pretty blatant sham, a masquerade for some other goal of theirs.

droithomme4• 14 years ago

"Rape charges"

Phil, do either of the women, Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén say the sex was rape?

smokeyj• 14 years ago

They must really want to know if Assange used a condom.

mechnik• 14 years ago

If he did, he could not very well be the leaky wick.

brudgers• 14 years ago

Precedent for storming another country's embassy?

Sure. Tehran, November 4, 1979.

rdtsc10• 14 years ago

> Isn't that basically an act of war?

So.

Forget all the legal nuances. We have to answer that question. So what then? So Britain blows everyone the middle finger and declared a war on Ecuador. Just like US invaded Iraq (physically).

Who is going to protect Ecuador? Is Ecuador going to suicide its soldiers by landing in Britain to protect Assange? Some Latin American countries will issue a very strongly worded statement and maybe some other countries will say something, and then I bet you nothing happens.

billswift2• 14 years ago

If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.

philwelch24• 14 years ago

It could always be both. Assange is probably persona non grata to the British authorities, but even if you wanted to manufacture some cause to imprison him, you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden. At most, the British authorities are reacting opportunistically to an otherwise valid, legitimate charge.

runako2• 14 years ago

I agree 100%. I wonder if those defending Assange would do so if he were accused of raping someone they care about.

spindritf• 14 years ago

> you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden

If you want to go after someone's reputation, a rape charge is perfect -- repugnant and requires no hard evidence, especially in Sweden. The only thing better would be an allegation without a formal charge... Though sure, there are more plausible explanations.

vidarh15• 14 years ago

There's been a complaint filed against the Swedish prosecutor over this case by third parties (two journalists) alleging judicial misconduct and serious breaches of Swedish law over amongst others her insistent refusal to send anyone to the UK to interview Assange, so it remains to be seem just how valid and legitimate this whole thing is.

orangecat• 14 years ago

even if you wanted to manufacture some cause to imprison him, you wouldn't go for fabricating a rape charge in Sweden

I would absolutely go for something like that, if I were clever enough to think of it. Look at how effectively it's split his support on the left by pitting civil libertarians against feminists, even on this thread.

elemeno6• 14 years ago

Granting someone asylum is a politically motivated act, wanting to arrest someone who's in breach of their bail conditions - not so much.

billswift2• 14 years ago

Threatening to invade an embassy is.

arrrg4• 14 years ago

Or he is someone who flees from serious charges and the British authorities don’t want to look like idiots in front of the whole world because they can’t do something simple like extradite him.

Why is there this willingness to believe everything this idiot says? He’s a pompous ass, pure and simple. No conspiracy required.

Meanwhile the idea of an anonymous leaks platform dies because everyone focuses on his stupid antics.

naner• 14 years ago

He is a pompous ass and so is Kim Dotcom. The problem is that the charges against each of them appear to be completely exaggerated or made up[1].

1: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4280532

saraid2163• 14 years ago

> the British authorities don’t want to look like idiots in front of the whole world

...they're looking like idiots right now.

abhimishra• 14 years ago

> He’s a pompous ass, pure and simple. No conspiracy required.

I don't get where this sentiment comes from - care to explain?

lrei2• 14 years ago

Lets take into account that invading an embassy is a rare occurrence (happened once that I know of), that it's largely regarded as somewhat hostile towards the nation that owns that embassy and the whole "bad precedent" thing.

Being afraid of "looking like idiots" doesn't seem like a very plausible explanation for invading an embassy.

I doubt the rest of the world would think British authorities were incompetent for wanting to avoid an international incident. Nor is forcing an embassy to release an asylum seeker something "simple".

I doubt that Assange being a "pompous ass" is what's killing the anonymous leaks platform idea. Rather I would say that the relentless pursuit of everyone involved in such leaks and their infrastructure as well as lack of support from traditional media are probably to blame for it.

waterlesscloud• 14 years ago

One thing going unsaid in all this is that it's quite likely British intelligence sources were put at risk but various wikileaks as well.

Which is probably key to their reaction.

pbhjpbhj2• 14 years ago

>that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated //

Can you explain this? In what way is it evidence in regards to the Swedish charges.

Based on recent cases of extradition to the USA examination of the charges is not made locally?

cjensen9• 14 years ago

The UK has a legal obligation to hand him over to Sweden per treaty. If they are to follow the law, rather than just make stuff up as they go along like a banana republic, then the legal apparatus in the UK has no discretion under which they can allow Assange to leave.

guelo6• 14 years ago

The series of tweets from https://twitter.com/abcnews (Australian Broadcasting Corp):

- #Breaking Wikileaks founder Julian Assange granted asylum in Ecuador

- #BREAKING: British Government won't guarantee Julian Assange safe passage to airport to leave for Ecuador #assange

- Clarification - Ecuador wants to give Assange asylum, but Britain is refusing to grant safe passage #breaking #wikileaks

- Ecuador Foreign Minister says they received a letter from British govt threatening to enter embassy & arrest Assange if he's not handed over

Simon_M• 14 years ago

It appears under UK law the Prime Minister could denounce the embassy as no longer Ecuadorian territory.

The UK government has 'reminded' Ecuador of this fact in an attempt to influence their decision.

alan_cx• 14 years ago

Presumably Ecuador could respond in kind.

It may well be that the wonderful British police or SAS could smoothly extract Assange, however, what happens if the not so wonderful Ecuadorian authorities decided to lay some sort of siege to the British Embassy in Ecuador? Are British authorities really prepared to risk that?

cjensen9• 14 years ago

If Ecuador did that, the British would simply leave peaceably. I'm not understanding the risk you refer to -- would not Ecuadorians be equally hindered by the lack of a British Embassy as the British?

elemeno6• 14 years ago

It isn't Ecuadorian territory, it's still British territory. UK law allows the UK to declare that it won't abide by the convention that embassies enjoy special legal status in law.

Tycho• 14 years ago

Absolute disgrace.

_delirium3• 14 years ago

Bizarre. The usual script for these kinds of things is a standoff where the host country denies passage out of the embassy, so the person being harbored in the embassy is stuck there until either that person gives up, the embassy gives them up, or some kind of deal for passage or exchange is struck. Threatening to the invade the embassy isn't usually on the table, at least in peacetime.

cjensen9• 14 years ago

The difference is that Assange did not simply ask for asylum. He agreed to go through the British Court system including posting bail under the solemn promise to obey the court.

Only when he lost did he go for asylum. Sincere asylum is not "Plan B."

davorak• 14 years ago

> Sincere asylum is not "Plan B."

I do not see why this is always the case, care to elaborate?

_delirium3• 14 years ago

That part, jumping bail by walking into an embassy, isn't all that unusual. China is worried enough about it that they sometimes shadow politically sensitive detainees who're out on bail to make sure they don't get close to any western embassies in Beijing.

larrys• 14 years ago

"embassy is stuck there until "

Or of course they need medical attention that can't be taken care of inside the embassy.

ditoa• 14 years ago

This case continues to amaze me.

It is like a movie not real life.

cobrausn4• 14 years ago

Did anyone not see this coming? Does he actually think they won't go after him to the full extent they are capable?

The thing about being a martyr for a cause is that they usually don't walk away from the experience unscathed. I think this man thought he was untouchable and acted accordingly, deciding to be a celebrity instead of a quiet hero. Well, the hammer is dropping.

Good luck, Julian, you completely unlikable but necessary bastard. Hopefully the people who carry on in your stead are a bit more careful.

fleitz3• 14 years ago

If you walk away with your life you're by definition not a martyr.

cobrausn4• 14 years ago

Nitpicking. People are often called 'martyr for a cause' if they end up persecuted or imprisoned.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr

Definition #2. It helps if you die, but it's not required.

Dove• 14 years ago

Actually, if you'll look at the wikipedia article about the term and its history, you'll see that it has several meanings. Dying isn't always required.

guelo6• 14 years ago

I like him. I guess we've probably swallowed different propaganda.

cobrausn4• 14 years ago

I tend not to swallow propaganda - I generally just dislike his behavior from the stories I've heard, from both friend and foe alike. He basically talked Manning into putting himself in the brig so he can go be the hero. I'm sure Manning was rotting in a cell while Assange was off having the sex (consensual or otherwise) that put the whole operation in jeopardy. I don't like him. Maybe that's all propaganda, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my take on it. His work is necessary but I don't like him.

Besides, look at that smug face. It's seriously in the running for a 'most punchable face alive' award.

dj2stein9• 14 years ago

The UK government is showing its true face, that of a tyrannical authoritarian government, who's legitimacy is threatened by the exact kind of transparency that Assange's organization intends to protect.

Old_Faithful3• 14 years ago

When was there even any doubt about it? Britain has been aligned with US imperialism for decades.

mootothemax2• 14 years ago

I am starting to think that the event Julian Assange fears most is that he'll end up in Sweden, walking down the street either a free man or after serving some time in jail, and have to wonder "what should I do now?"

AngrySkillzz3• 14 years ago

General opinion seems to think that he'll be questioned in Sweden and then extradited to the US, likely to sit in solitary confinement a la Bradley Manning. Now I'm not saying one way or the other, but it is definitely a possibility.

barking2• 14 years ago

Why would Sweden be more likely to extradite to the USA than the UK? Sweden is neutral whereas the UK is a USA ally.

julianz• 14 years ago

So, just to make sure I'm keeping up, the UK is threatening an act of war against Ecuador in order to extradite an Australian who's wanted by the US to Sweden. okithinkigotit.

elemeno6• 14 years ago

It's not an act of war - it's, at worst, a violation of a convention. An embassy/consulate/mission is the territory of the host country and not, as is commonly thought, sovereign to the country who's located in it.

Old_Faithful3• 14 years ago

You are mistaken. Under International law, embassies are on sovereign soil of the guest country.

jakeonthemove• 14 years ago

Eh, even if they get him, it's not like it's going to change much for WikiLeaks - the platform will go on, probably stronger than before. The politicians will pat themselves on the back for a "good job" catching Assange, while the leaks go on and people find out stuff they weren't supposed to know (and most of them don't even care either way).

The UK should be like, "well, whatever, he'll come out eventually" instead of issuing threats against other countries. Maybe they'll send in the SAS next - that would be interesting to watch...

nickperry2• 14 years ago

Why does Ecuador even want to stand its ground on this? Why do they want to harbor Assange in the first place? Seems silly to escalate this to the national level when they don't seem to benefit from it in any material or practical sense.

koski2• 14 years ago

I'm no pro in politics but what I have read Ecuador has pretty strong relationship with Venezuela. And at least the later one is happy to get USA "angry" when possible.

mike-cardwell• 14 years ago

So countries should only respond to requests for asylum when they themselves benefit from it?

The only thing that they should be looking at, is whether or not his case for asylum is valid under their rules.

nickperry2• 14 years ago

Touche

cjensen9• 14 years ago

South American countries tend to lurch from right to left and back. Currently Ecuador has elected to be governed by their anti-American leftist party. I would be shocked if they didn't grant Assange asylum just for the sake of pretending to save Assange from the US, if for no better reason.

youngtaff6• 14 years ago

About time we started applying the pressure...

Assange is taking his supporters for a ride, if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions?

As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused'

The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer?

Ship Assange out, if not Sweden then Australia, he's taking the piss (to use an UK colloquialism) and lots of people are falling for his conspiracy theory rubbish.

TallGuyShort2• 14 years ago

>> if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions?

If he's not guilty, AND this isn't politically motivated, why not just go back? If this is actually politically motivated, then your question is fundamentally no different from "if you're not a terrorist, why don't you just submit to wiretaps / TSA body scans / etc..."

If I was him and I was innocent, I would probably not expect to face fair questions if I went back. The being said, I know almost nothing about the Swedish government so maybe I am being too much of a conspiracy theorist.

elemeno6• 14 years ago

Sweden is part of the EU and any extradition from Sweden to the US would have to permissible under EU Human Rights laws, which specifically deny extradition if the extradited person could be subject to the death penalty if found guilty of the accusations they're being extradited for.

Given that the US has filled no charges against him, made no extradition requests to Sweden or the UK, and that there seems to be a fair degree of legal consensus that the European Court of Human Rights would deny extradition for the sort of charges that the US could plausibly file against him it seems to me that to believe that Assange has credible reasons to try and avoid obeying the request that he attend questioning in Sweden for what would be considered fairly serious accusations in most western countries is to buy into a conspiracy theory.

barking2• 14 years ago

Yes, I don't know if he's guilty of rape or not (there seems to be a whiff of women scorned about it) but the Swedish justice system has as good a reputation as any.

Joakal2• 14 years ago

Not when it comes to politics or copyright.

Two known events:

CIA extraordinary rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden

The Pirate Bay

Pirate Bay Judge Exposed as Member of Pro-Copyright Groups http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/pirateconflict/

Aftermath of The Pirate Bay Trial: Peter Sunde’s Plea http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/06/aftermath-of-the-pirate-bay-...

Pro-Copyright Judges Never Drop Cases Over Conflicts, So Why Does Megaupload Judge Have To Step Down? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/00503119739/pro-co...

TillE• 14 years ago

Given the way the US government has behaved over the past ten years, the fear is not irrational. Also, we're talking about the possibility of extradition to the US from Sweden, not from the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-a...

youngtaff6• 14 years ago

Yes but if the US want him they can get a US judge to decide he has a case to answer and then seek his extradition from the UK, they don't need to go through Sweden.

boyter• 14 years ago

For one reason the definition of rape in Sweden is rather interesting. There is no concept of consent rather the accusation is apparently based on the amount of violence. All a woman has to do is resist for there to be a rape case and prove so. The result is that generally it seems to be all the court needs to do is believe the woman. Hence you could have the case of there being what happens a lot in other countries, a boozy night out, consensual sex, followed by remorse the next day. However you can then charge the man with rape. It's this fuzzy line that usually throws out rape cases (In Australia at least, and this is not necessarily a good thing) where alcohol was shown to be involved.

I am not a lawyer, and not that familiar with Swedish law, but I would be Assange or his lawyer is, and is also aware that if the women are really working on behalf of some other agency there is a high likely hood of Swedish law working against him. If that's the case he is unlikely to get a fair hearing.

NB if someone more familiar with Swedish law could speak up about this that would be excellent. I would love some corrections about the above with supported documentation.

BTW as an Aussie I am horrified that our PM Julia Gillard condemned him without any proof, and even more furious over their lack of involvement to help an Australian national. Convicted Drug Traffickers seem to get more help from the Australian government then people only accused of a crime.

vidarh15• 14 years ago

If he IS guilty, and knows that this isn't politically motivated, then why doesn't he go back to Sweden?

The worst possible sentence he is likely to get under Swedish law is so short that he'd likely have been out by now, after serving in a low security prison of a standard better than many British hotel rooms.

If he ISN'T guilty, then he has every reason to be concerned over the bizarre situations surrounding this case, such as why one prosecutor dismissed the case as obviously nothing criminal, only for another prosecutor with a known history for being aggressive about these types of cases to jump in an pick it up in a pretty unheard of move, and with the long list of other irregularities in the case, combined with Marianne Ny (the prosecutor)'s long standing refusal to consider interviewing him in London - a move that is pretty shocking given how they continue to expend resources in this case and insist it is so serious.

It is quite possible that the US has nothing to do with it, but something is fishy in the way the Swedish prosecution is handling this. Maybe it's not a US desire to extradite him, but "just" a prosecutor out to make her name with a politically motivated case where the target is Swedish rape law, not Assange - if it is he'd surely be a perfect target. But if I was him and I was innocent, I'd resist extradition too.

Of course, it is possible he's guilty but at the same time paranoid about the US - just pointing out that it is not a given that staying away from Sweden in these circumstances imply guilt. On the contrary, there are plenty of reasons for someone to be more wary about going back if not guilty in this case.

> As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused'

Law enforcement frequently opt to interview suspects in situations less than ideal when the choice is to not be able to interview them at all, or to have the interviews delayed.

Consider that if there is a case to answer - something that is not clear, as no charges have been filed (Assange is wanted for arrest for questioning on suspicion, not charged; the distinction keeps confusing British media, who is not used to the Scandinavian justice systems) -, then every day that goes makes any testimony that is collected less likely to be considered reliable by the court, and it is also clearly not in the interest of the alleged victims either to have the situation drag on without knowing whether or not the case will move forward.

This is also, despite the protestations of the Swedish prosecutor, commonly the case in Sweden. As many has pointed out, Sweden recently sent people to Poland to interview two people arrested on suspicion of a brutal double homicide, prior to an extradition hearing in Poland under an EAW.

Yet somehow they keep claiming they couldn't possibly do this in the Assange case, even going so far as to claim that Swedish law and court procedures won't allow it. This is another one of those things that makes the Assange case stink a long way, whether the US is involved in any way or not.

> The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer?

How easy is it? McKinnon has been able to avoid extradition for 10 years now, despite a pretty clear cut case of hacking that is clearly illegal in both countries. As it turns out, while UK judges will honour UK obligations, they are also highly scrupulous about ensuring all arguments are heard, and the UK government seems unwilling to try an end-run around the legal process.

Meanwhile, Sweden has been censured by the UN for participating in rendition of at least two people in blatant violation of not only internatonal obligatons, but also of Swedish law.

youngtaff6• 14 years ago

Yeh, but McKinnon may well be mentally ill. Look at the Natwest Bankers, the guys with the battery for other cases where it happened fairly quickly

ucee0543• 14 years ago

If the Swedish government legitimately wanted to question Assange about the risible "rape" charges (that they didn't even bother with while he was in Sweden), why didn't they give a guarantee not to extradite him to the US?

Because they want to extradite him and the "rape" case is an excuse.

cjensen9• 14 years ago

Why not guarantee they won't extradite him to the US?

Well first of all, either an arrest warrant is valid or it is not. If valid, why do they need to bribe someone to obey the law? Sure, I sometimes give my kids snacks to bribe them into doing something they don't want to do, but I'm not the law.

Second, they cannot promise what their reaction would be. Suppose something impossibly-unlikely like the US has a video-tape of Assange killing someone in the US. The Swedes would then look pretty stupid at having given Assange a no-extradite promise. Now of course Assange isn't a murderer; the point is that the Swedes can't give blanket promises about extradition without actually seeing the facts of the extradition request first.

belorn2• 14 years ago

Its interesting that around all this talk about rape allegation, no actually allegation was made by the suggested victims called so by reporters. The two women were seeking advice on the possibility to force Assange to take a STD test after unprotected sex, and a prosecutor independently decided to start the prosecution after reading the report. One of the victims has gotten so tired of it all that she now refuses to testify, and refuses to sign any old statements she made in regards to the whole affair. The other woman, as far as I know, has left the country. If in a fantasy world this would go to trial in Sweden on rape charges, it would be unlikely to see either one of the two "victims" in court.

AManWithOpinion• 14 years ago

It is important to notice that when someone started shooting from Libyan embassy in the 80s and killed a British policewoman the UK's government did not enter the embassy. However, now in a case of far less importance(basically a case whether a condom broke on its own or did Assange do it on purpose) they consider doing it? Something is seriously not right here.

koski2• 14 years ago

I undertood that because the event (shooting + aftermatch) happened, the "Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987" was created. Which is now used by Brittish government.

tokenadult• 14 years ago

How rapidly people forget their history. Britain has a specific law on the subject because of an incident that occurred in Britain within my memory, a shooting of a police officer from within the grounds of the Libyan embassy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher

No, harboring Julian Assange is not just like shooting at police officers outside the embassy, but preventing the host country from continuing to follow the steps of its agreements about accused defendants with another country is also not the normal activity of a diplomatic representative. There is a long tradition of dissidents seeking asylum in foreign embassies, and that tradition seems to be longest in Latin America, but that can also have consequences for the embassy's relationship with the host country.

AFTER EDIT:

By the way, it has been a very, very long time (since before I was born) since the United States federal government has imposed capital punishment for the crimes of treason or espionage (which, yes, could be a basis for capital punishment under federal law).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unite...

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...

Nowadays, it is routine for persons who revealed secret information to the harm of the United States to be imprisoned, sometimes for a term of years rather than for life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies#American...

Simply put, even IF Julian Assange were to have to leave Sweden after going from Britain to Sweden for questioning, and even IF Julian Assange were then charged with espionage by the United States, and even IF he were then convicted of espionage, it is quite doubtful that Assange would be executed. Most likely, he would just (if ALL of the hypothetical events happened) end up spending a lot of time in the Supermax prison in Colorado.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Flo...

elemeno6• 14 years ago

And the world tends to have different views on requesting asylum due to political persecution vs requesting it to avoid accusations that you've committed a fairly serious criminal act.

guelo6• 14 years ago

Ecuador's justification is that they believe there is a chance that the USA is planning to extradite him from Sweeden and then charge him with a crime which is punishable by death. Ecuador believes that a death sentence is a violation of Assange's human rights.

mindslight• 14 years ago

How exactly do you think 'political persecution' works? When they come to arrest you, do you think they proclaim "We're politically persecuting you!" ?

fleitz3• 14 years ago

Just to clarify things there is no charge against Assange. Assange isn't accused of any crime.

Perhaps if there were Ecuadorian charges against Assange to which he could plead guilty and thus be a fugitive from international law, which would obviously require he be sent to Ecuador to serve time before going to Sweden for questioning.

I wonder how Britain would feel about it's international obligations under those circumstances.

youngtaff6• 14 years ago

The 1987 Act was a response to the Libyan embassy siege.

Let's face it if Assange does go to Ecuador then the ambassador is going with him.

fleitz3• 14 years ago

Assange doing his thing via wikileaks is better than 10 diplomats in how he promotes governmental transparency, and more equitable relations between the people and their governors.

guelo6• 14 years ago

Since 9/11 the USA has shown that it does not follow the civil rules of law for non-citizens. Obama's DOJ has convened a secret grand jury investigating Assange under the Espionage Act[1]. Joe Biden has called him a terrorist [2]. Others have called for his assassination [3]. Sweden was involved in the CIA's illegal rendition program and sent people to be tortured in Egypt[4]. Assange has every reason to fear for his life.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tec...

[3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in...

[4] http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b...

delinka4• 14 years ago

Let's not pretend that it's a problem only with the current administration and his political party. The previous one found the civil rules of law rather inconvenient also and waved them off just as easily.

I am not arguing with your statement (you have said nothing wrong) but I'd like to head off the potential "Obama/Democrats is/are the problem!" rants.

GHFigs• 14 years ago

Obama's DOJ has convened a secret grand jury investigating Assange under the Espionage Act.

All grand jury proceedings are secret. This is a normal part of the US legal system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_Stat...

turar• 14 years ago

> Since 9/11 the USA has shown that it does not follow the civil rules of law for non-citizens.

Citizens too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Rahman_al-Awlaki (16 y.o. minor US citizen)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Khan

philwelch24• 14 years ago

I'm amused by the notion that Assange has to somehow be extradited to Sweden if the CIA is going to rendition him. The CIA renditions people by kidnapping them off the street. They can do that in London just as well as anywhere else in the world. If the CIA wanted to rendition Assange, Assange would have been renditioned by now. The whole Sweden business would only get in the way of a rendition, not facilitate it.

lifeguard• 14 years ago

The Obama admin has an active global program of executing US citizens that are labeled 'enemy combatants' or providing aid to E.C., with no judicial review.

Execution without judicial review.

caf4• 14 years ago

The entire idea of charging Assange with espionage against the United States is ridiculous - he owes no duty to that nation. What's next, Russia demanding the extradition of CIA analysts so that they can be charged with revealing Russia's state secrets while working at a desk in Virginia?

rdtsc10• 14 years ago

That is if the world treated US as a reasonable actor bound by laws and respecting human rights etc. (all the propaganda that it like to spew about itself).

Its actions have shown in the last 10+ years that is not the case. It has detained, tortured and killed people extra-judicially. Even its own citizens. Making any appeals to the the quality of it judicial process is a bit silly at the moment.

So in other words it might not make sense to be afraid of that particular threat "charge of espionage" but it is not unreasonable for him to fear in general.

Remember the case how that Russian ex-KGB agent was poisoned with Polonium? There is little doubt it was the Russians doing it and they also wanted to make sure there would be little doubt (except hard evidence) that they did, so that everyone learns to fear opposing or criticizing them in the future.

It seems to me Assange and Manning are prime candidates for being turned into example for all to see.

zimmerman2• 14 years ago

There's a Bob Dylan song called "Julius and Ethel". What is he singing about?

Julius and Ethel are the young couple who were executed for espionage in 1953. This was at the height of McCarthyism. Most of us agree McCarthy was a little, ahem, extreme. It's an interesting story and younger readers should check it out. Was Ethel Rosenberg really a spy? What did she do? The Wikipedia page has some links to further reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Rosenberg

Reading over the BBC's timeline of the Assange case really leaves one in a state of bewilderment. The "rape" story was shared with between two women and then with a journalist? The allegations were dropped. Then reinstated? He's being extradicted for some allegations? Allegations, not charges. And those have nothing to do with leaking documents and espionage? WTF?

Are all the newspapers innocent in this? They spread the cables far and wide. It took more than just a disillusioned private and some nerds sniffing Tor exit nodes. The papers are still attracting readers and advertising dollars using this whole incident as a catapult.

The whole thing is really bizarre if you come at it objectively.

AngrySkillzz3• 14 years ago

Lest we forget, Bradley Manning was not given his right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. Though the federal government hasn't imposed capital punishment for espionage/treason officially, who's to say solitary confinement isn't just as bad (or worse)?

thom• 14 years ago

What appears to be the text of the communication:

http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/201...

mkramlich11• 14 years ago

So it appears that both the UK government and the Swedish government have lost moral authority due to their behavior on this issue. And if they violate the Ecuadoran embassy that could be considered an act of war. At the least a cause to cease diplomatic and trade relations.

If Sweden truly just wanted to question Assange, they could do it via mail, email, phone, video chat or of course an in person meeting in the UK. All of which I believe Assange has already offered to do. But they've declined. Which means that Sweden/UK/USA's actual goal is something other than simply questioning him. It's a fact that he's neither been convicted or even charged with any crime (IIRC), especially not with respect to the supposed sexual "assault" incidents, which look like he-said/she-said instances at best, and a frame-up at worst.

youngtaff6• 14 years ago

Since when has the 'accused' had the right to tell law enforcement agencies when and where they may be questioned?

delinka4• 14 years ago

Without charges (i.e. being placed under arrest) he has every right to freedom of movement. Ergo he can answer (or not answer) questions wherever he damn well pleases. If that's so inconvenient for law enforcement, charge the fucker and arrest him.

I don't understand why it's gotten to this point- you charge and arrest him ... or GTFO.

objclxt4• 14 years ago

I strongly advise anyone who isn't familiar with English law (so, you know, most people here) to actually read what lawyers have to say about the matter. There is a very good legal analysis here:

http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the...

Whenever I see a story here about Julian Assange I just sigh. I don't understand how on the one hand people can be absolutely appalled when stories about sexism at conference, in the workplace, etc etc come along and then take the sort of attitudes we see here.

Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women. These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this.

Maybe, just maybe this is a big fit up from people 'out to get' Assange. But you also have to concede that both the simplest explanation, and one not beyond the realms of possibility, is that these women are genuinely making these accusations. They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition.

Most people accused of what Assange does do not have the luxury of fleeing to a foreign embassy. I don't see why it is so controversial that Assange should go and face these allegations. Supporters of Assange really can't have their cake and eat it.

quink2• 14 years ago

> Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women. These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could possibly deny this.

You may have missed this bit in the article, at the very end:

"An offer to the Swedish authorities by Ecuador for investigators to interview Mr Assange inside the embassy, was rejected."

objclxt4• 14 years ago

So? Sweden is well within their rights to refuse that offer. They have an outstanding, legitimate European Arrest Warrant that was subject to many appeals, all of which were denied. I do not blame them for refusing that offer: are you suggesting if they did interview Assange in the embassy and decided they wanted to charge him he would just walk out happily? I doubt it.

twinsnes• 14 years ago

If all they want to do is question him, they can easily do that without extraditing him. That said, I don't know the details of the case nor any of the evidence. For me it looks like this could have been easily solved using technology, but someone is not willing, and that makes it smell like politics.

timrogers• 14 years ago

Part of the issue though is that Assange has volunteered to speak to Swedish authorities to answer these accusations but they have refused to do this.

Jabbles• 14 years ago

Are the Swedish police acting in a manner representative of a suspect wanted for questioning, known to be in a foreign country? Does Sweden regularly request extradition of people in similar circumstances?

rdtsc10• 14 years ago

Had his name been Joe Smith or something, would've they bothered?

ucee0543• 14 years ago

For the second time:

Because they want to extradite him and the "rape" case is an excuse.

youngtaff6• 14 years ago

From memory the Swedish prosecutor first requested he came back only when he refused did it all go down the extradition route.

If Assange was so afraid Sweden would send him to the US why did he go there in the first place?

rdtsc10• 14 years ago

> Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women.

He has been under house arrest with access to phone, TV, internet. He even runs a freakin' talk show. Telling the world they can't "question" him is a little dis-indigenous and they need to make up a better reason.

vidarh15• 14 years ago

For starters, the women did not make these accusations. A prosecutor have.

This distinction is worth making. At no point did these women go to the police and claim that Assange had raped them - not even the Swedish prosecution has made the claim they did. They did go to the police and ask questions that someone at the police then decided to interpret as indicating that a crime might have taken place, and start an investigation.

They then were interviewed, in situations that subsequent reports indicate may have been blatant violations of police procedure - no recording was apparently made, one of the police officers involved was allegedly a friend of one of the witnesses.

The results were statements that have not been formally released, nor been verified or scrutinized by anyone independent.

What is allegedly the police reports were on the other hand illegally leaked to a Swedish newspaper, and Assanges name was confirmed by authorities in conjunction with the case in blatant violation of Swedish police procedures. But we don't even know if the leaked police reports are accurate or final copies.

Subsequent to the investigation, the first prosecutor to get involved in the case looked at the police reports and decided they indicated that no crime had taken part.

What is allegedly descriptions supported by the contents of these statements was then used in the arrest warrants formulated by a second prosecutor that stepped in in a highly unusual move and reopened the investigation.

The reasons for why she stepped in to reopen just this case, despite how unusual it is to do so when another prosecutor has closed the case, has not at any point been explained.

In retrospect, it is now also being alleged that one of the women is refusing to sign statements about the case at all.

In other words, so far we don't even know what the women actually said to the police.

What we know is the content of a highly unusual and highly illegal leak to a Swedish newspaper, and how one prosecutor has chosen to interpret their words in an arrest warrant written with the express purpose of ensuring that a UK court would extradite Assange to the UK.

We do know one prosecutor found the police investigation had not found any evidence that any crime had taken place at all, and another found it did. We do know there are a lot of open questions about how the statements were collected, and about lack of documentation. We do have reason to question whether at least one of the women is willing to put her name behind the police interpretation of what she said. We don't know whether they made any actual allegations that amount to any crimes.

Maybe it is all accurate, and perhaps he is guilty. But it isn't even remotely clear whether or not there even should be a case to answer.

> They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition.

That is true, and it is not surprising that UK courts ordered the extradition.

But the real issue here is also not whether there is a genuine reason for a UK court to approve an extradition, but whether or not there is something going on that gives reason to be concerned that these accusations are not the full story.

Especially in a case where the Swedish prosecution have had a year or so to interview him in London, yet have chosen not to while claiming they can't. At the same time, somehow Swedish police has been able to go off to Poland to interview two suspected Polish murderers about a double homicide.

So either Swedish police has just risked messing up a double homicide case, or the Swedish prosecutor in the Assange case is at best misinformed about something she ought to know about, at worst being intentionally deceptive.

Even if we don't buy the US extradition idea, this is still a strange situation. The argument that they somehow need him on Swedish soil is nonsense - Swedish police provably regularly conduct interviews outside of Sweden, and you can provably be charged and tried in absentia in Sweden, despite many claims to the contrary.

So why does the Swedish prosecutor resist taking up evidence in a rape case for a year while making claims about why she is not that can not be supported by fact?

thebigshane• 14 years ago

You seem to bringing up a lot of new information about this case that I didn't know, so I have to ask: citations?

x03• 14 years ago

I'm a little surprised by the HN crowd's desire to turn this into some kind of Michael Bay movie with diplomatic explosions left, right and centre: the phrase "act of war" is being dropped around as if some kind of violent confrontation would ever actually occur between Ecuador and the United Kingdom based on this. This is simply not the case; at most, it would be loosely unfair of the British government to 'bully' Ecuador into its bidding and they would protest as harshly as they could (not very). This is not a fair system; international relations is a system wherein "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"[1].

The Government here has advised that under through a sound legal process it may revoke the legal status of an instituion within and on its territory. Is this right? Well, it's a little unusual...alternatively, ignoring the interests and desires of Sweden, the European Union and the United States would be still further unwise for the British. Britain has its interests, and it must do what serves them best.

In this case, doing something less than usual is worth it: there's virtually no downside to upsetting a small Latin American country in the process. The British government just won't care. It's not fair, but for better or worse, that's that.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides

caf4• 14 years ago

Yes. The most likely result is a tit-for-tat expulsion of ambassadors, followed by a quiet re-establishment of diplomatic ties in about a year's time.

Steko3• 14 years ago

"In this case, doing something less than usual is worth it: there's virtually no downside to upsetting a small Latin American country in the process. "

Let's analyze this a bit further...

Next time a British citizen holes up in the British embassy over some sham charges at the hands of the local police what are the likely aftershocks of Britain bullying Ecuador over Assange.

Zenst• 14 years ago

I some how now expect loads of people turning up in anonymous masks outside the embassy with a group of people leaving also in aformentioned masks. There then ensues a combination of the Thomas Crown Affair and a Benny Hill sketch.

Now that possible outcome aside I do wonder if there are more important clear-cut cases of people in the UK wanted for questioning regarding crimes in Switzerland. I'm tending to think that if there was then that would of been made very public already and yet I have seen none. If he is in all effect Sitzerlands number one criminal suspect or wanted criminal in the UK and who's location is known then maybe this isn't as biased with regard to pursuit than any other case and only with the News value is it publicly deemed more impacting.

But thats not realy the issue, the issue if he ends up being shipped to America and lost in a maze of prisons that is the issue realy as if there was a case against him then America would of been granted a extradition from the UK, that did not happen. Now if that happens in Switzerland then that is the concern and the real issue and in that you can respect Mr Assange's concerns upon that matter and why he is taking the approach he is currently as that whole assurance has not been given that it will not happen. If he had that assurance then from my understanding is that this would not be an issue and in the news today. It is this that makes things concerning in how things are being possibly being handled.

RIP Yvonne Fletcher, justice was slow, but we do get there.

cyrus_• 14 years ago

Based on Twitter chatter, Anonymous is indeed gathering supporters in Britain outside the Ecuadorian embassy as we speak.

cypherpunks01• 14 years ago

It appears that the livestreaming site bambuser.com is down after a British fellow started streaming from outside the embassy and it was picked up by wikileaks on twitter:

http://twitter.com/alburyj http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj

grandalf• 14 years ago

In 2012 a journalist is persecuted in this way. I never would have expected this to happen.

andyl• 14 years ago

This looks like a raw smear against Assange. Would be interesting to know the political pressures being brought to bear on the Swedish prosecutor's office.

rbanffy2• 14 years ago

I think we are about to witness the only real rape in this whole sad story.

rizla3• 14 years ago

I'm quite surprised that its only now that the links to Argentina and Britians current wranglings with South American countries are being talked about.

Remember they are all friends. The UK has the Falklands which Argentina (mates of Ecuador) are very keen to take ownership, especially with the discovery of every conspiracy theorists favourite motivator.... OIL

Yes boys and girls, perhaps this whole thing is less to do with Assange and wiki-leaks and more to do with a bit of dick waving over old wounds and money. That's a better theory for whats going on now

UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

Related Stories