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...
[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...
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)
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...
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.
Execution without judicial review.
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.
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.
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.
Let's face it if Assange does go to Ecuador then the ambassador is going with him.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Phil, do either of the women, Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilén say the sex was rape?
>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.
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.
Sure. Tehran, November 4, 1979.
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.
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.
I don't get where this sentiment comes from - care to explain?
...they're looking like idiots right now.
Which is probably key to their reaction.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
If Assange was so afraid Sweden would send him to the US why did he go there in the first place?
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-a...
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.
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...
Because they want to extradite him and the "rape" case is an excuse.
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.
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.
Besides, look at that smug face. It's seriously in the running for a 'most punchable face alive' award.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr
Definition #2. It helps if you die, but it's not required.
Only when he lost did he go for asylum. Sincere asylum is not "Plan B."
I do not see why this is always the case, care to elaborate?
Or of course they need medical attention that can't be taken care of inside the embassy.
The only thing that they should be looking at, is whether or not his case for asylum is valid under their rules.
The UK government has 'reminded' Ecuador of this fact in an attempt to influence their decision.
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?
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.
I don't understand why it's gotten to this point- you charge and arrest him ... or GTFO.
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.
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.
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.
- #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
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...
It is like a movie not real life.
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
http://twitter.com/alburyj http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj
http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/201...
