... "Today we've received a threat by the United Kingdom, a clear and written threat that they could storm our embassy in London if Ecuador refuses to hand in Julian Assange," Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters.

"We are not a British colony," he added in an angry statement after a meeting with President Rafael Correa.

Ecuador will announce its decision regarding Assange's asylum request on Thursday at 7 a.m. (1200 GMT), he added, amid media speculation that the government has already decided to grant Assange asylum ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-idUSBRE87E16N20120815

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" ...

An Ecuadorian government spokesman said he was "deeply shocked" by the British government's "threats"
UK govt threatens to enter Ecuador embassy
August 16, 2012 - 8:39AM
Alan Jones
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/uk-govt-threatens-to-enter-ecuador-embassy-20120816-249rj.html

Might make UK think twice before committing an act of war.

Diplomacy would be the Brits telling Sweden: "Gee, we'd like to help you out - but technically Assange is no longer on British soil. Take your extradiction case up with Ecuador."

They had a legitimate gripe at the time. Now they're being hypocritical. UK is the one escalating the situation, if they invade Ecuadors embassy, then Ecuador has every right to retaliate against UK embassy in Quito.

What difference? Either way the govt is giving the orders.

Add more players to the conspiracy theory. Pretty soon, we'll have the Queen in on it!

Wouldn't it make sense for Sweden to ask Ecuador to permit a police investigator question Assange at the embassy? Unless, of course, Sweden had something more in mind beyond the "questioning" stated in the extradition.

Which is why the correct response from Ecuador is to threaten to invade UK embassy in Quito. Nothing stops bullies like the certainty of being hit back.

released the text

The message was quite clearly a threat... that calls into question the agenda of those denying that? PsychOps, perhaps?

warrant upheld by the UK courts, from which you conclude I'm engaged in psy-ops to support some extraordinary rendition policy

UK's "reminder" that it claims the right to forcibly enter the embassy is in violation of international treaty, and is intended to be interpreted as a diplomatic threat. Your lame protestations to the contrary are in complete denial of the reality.

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

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

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

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-letter-britain-warns-it-can-arrest-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-at-ecuadors-embassy/2012/08/16/ac56ef70-e790-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html

So Ecuador was already engaged in a quiet process with the UK to work out a jointly agreeable basis for Assange to leave the embassy, with another meeting scheduled for tomorrow, when rumors began to fly that Ecuador simply intended to grant Assange indefinite shelter in the embassy, entirely contrary to the UK's understanding of the discussions it and Ecuador were having, at which point the UK appropriately pointed out to Ecuador that such a move could have substantial diplomatic consequences

but I don't see you going on and on for hours about extraditing him....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/7714122/Interpol-hunt-former-Icelandic-bank-chief-Sigurdur-Einarsson.html

Arguably, crashing international economies rates far higher on the outrage scale than someone wanted for questioning only.

Sigurdur Einarsson, former chairman of the defunct Icelandic bank Kaupthing, was arrested in London at 5:30 this morning along with the bank’s biggest customer, Robert Tchenguiz, and five others in a joint operation by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Office of the Special Prosecutor in Iceland ... http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/Former_Chair_of_Iceland%E2%80%99s_Kaupthing_Arrested_in_London_0_375043.news.aspx

Your article is from May 2010

about the British government harboring this criminal?

Or perhaps you'd like to show me your posts on this from that time?

My point still stands: the UK conveeeeniently ignores interpol in regards to REAL criminals, yet you and many others both on DU and elsewhere expect us to believe that Assange - whose "criminality" is by no means proven - must be sent to Sweden without guarantees against extradition to the US pronto? Do I have this correctly?

Honestly, frankly, black and white thinking bores me. No need to answer. Take it as a rhetorical question.

So the U.K. can threaten to invade another country's embassy in order to retrieve a person who has not even been charged with a crime (and whose crime, if true, would barely rise to the level of a serious misdemeanor) -- and you're okay with that? YOU are the one cheerleading the opponents of diplomacy here.

If you cannot see how serious a breach it would be for the U.K. to invade the Ecuadorian embassy, or to revoke the embassy's status just so they can retrieve someone who was granted asylum -- well then your vision is clouded indeed. I get that you have a different opinion of the Assange case than I and many others, and that is well within the bounds of our discourse here. But to advocate this sort of illegal action by the U.K., that would fly in the face of hundreds of years of international law, is simply stunning.

They will loan the British government their SAS forces to raid the embassy

attention to relevant provisions of our law," including the rules which govern the legal status of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom.

The statement didn't elaborate, but Britain's 1987 Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act does allow British officials to revoke the diplomatic status of a building if the foreign power to which it belongs "ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post."

"We have an obligation to extradite Mr. Assange and it is only right that we give Ecuador (the) full picture," the statement said, before adding: "We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution" ...

Ecuador says Britain threatened embassy assault
By GONZALO SOLANO – 31 minutes ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guLgy8ZaKi4dvqy8diRa5CX5XX7g?docId=a31449b473df46f1bbbc5887fd4a523a

of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," the spokesman said ...

... the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 ... allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange.

The BBC's deputy political editor James Landale says the British government has been in long negotiations with Ecuador over the issue and has reminded it of the act.

But he added that while the UK has been frustrated at the lack of a decision it is not about to raid the embassy ...

15 August 2012 Last updated at 18:40 ET
Julian Assange: UK issues 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

All this, over 2 "alleged" rape charges that no one has seen proof of? They think that w/ the capture & ELIMINATION of Mr. A, the TRUTH is just going to go away & never return?! NOT! This man is a HERO, this man & His support system will NEVER STOP, no matter who they railroad! I'm SO waiting for the next batch. Viva Revolution!! Viva Assange! Viva Equidor!

in a court of law and convince an unbiased jury. A lot more than "he said, she said." You have heard of due process, haven't you? This whole episode reeks of a setup masterminded by the CIA. Assange has every reason to fear being "disappeared" or "suicided."

So this entire conspiracy hinges on the complicity of:

U.K.
U.S.
Australia
Sweden
Swedish prosecutors
The women who initially filed for redress

All this to get back at a man whose actions have had little to no consequences in the real world.

A conspiracy that requires this many moving parts is no conspiracy of mine!

Or he's so important it would be impossible to "take him out" without some kind of serious repercussions.

Obviously the UK believes he's so important they are risking the very foundations of international diplomatic law in order to grab him.

I'm going with important. Obviously incredibly important with the latest escalation in rhetoric and action.

This is not about Me. This is about the truth, the lies, the smoke & mirrors, the patterns of suppression/oppression We see everyday. Threats to storm an embassy?, by force? I don't condone cowardly crimes against anyone, but dayum!, do you not smell the stench of this? That being said, I do take your' point, & will do a more thorough job of thinking things through before posting My opinions. Thank You for Your' critique, & peace to You & Yours'. F.I.B.

It is quite certain that the UK much values its important relations with the great and sovereign nation of Ecuador, which has always brought so much to the table, just as the UK much values its important relations with the great and sovereign nation of Sweden

But, on careful consideration, the UK naturally finds that Ecuadorian credentials are recognized, at the Court of St James, with ordinary immunities granted, for standard diplomatic activities tending to lubricate relations between the two nations

Should the Ecuadorians contemplate using their diplomatic outpost inappropriately to interfere in the internal affairs of the UK, by attempting de facto to stall the judgments of UK courts, in suits at law which do not ( even indirectly) involve the Ecuadorians, or to interfere (as an uninvolved third party) to block the UK from honoring an international treaty commitment (here a negotiated extradition framework), the UK will find time to explain to the Ecuadorians, in whatever detail is needed, the real purpose of the diplomatic immunities granted, the voluntary nature of the relations, and the fact that the parties are free to withdraw various recognitions, should irremediable differences arise

The UK can probably say this pleasantly, using words slow and measured, as often as necessary

However slowly and pleasantly the Brits say it, doesn't disguise the reality that Assange is being targeted by the Brits and the US because he's embarrassed them by releasing evidence of war crimes. That some other countries believe there's a misuse of justice in this case means they'll most likely go to the same extraordinary efforts to stay within the spirit of the law if not the exact letter.

I wouldn't be surprised if they make Assange an Ecuadorean citizen and appoint him their UN diplomat which would grant him diplomatic status. In fact I'm wondering if the British (over)reaction has been provoked because they're going to do this.

Drive a diplomatic vehicle like a motorcycle right into the building and bring Assange out and head straight into the diplomatic plane at Heathrow....

The Brits would ensure a huge diplomatic row if they go ahead and try to arrest a country's legitimately appointed diplomat, on the streets for trumped up charges that are so transparent its pretty incredible that there are any DUers who believe them.

He is no more a 'person of interest' than you or me. If the U.K. wanted to do the U.S.'s bidding, why did they not do something before now?

and the hunt for Assange, then I can't help you. I honestly don't have the time to go through it all. Feel free to google or do a site search of DU. I assure you the US wants Assange very, very badly for his role in exposing illegal US actions in Iraq (for one thing) and other places.

They've been trying to get to Assange for many months now, working through regular channels. Sounds like Ecuador is about to take extraordinary steps to protect Assange and that's provoking the Powers-That-Be into unprecedented threats of embassy invasion.

I can't find any record of the Brits ever invading an embassy located in England. Ever. But they're going to do it over this guy. He's that important clearly.

...of Australia, Sweden, U.S. and U.K. suffered because of Assange? Red faces?

action of invading a foreign embassy in England?

I would presume that the two questions are related - they're doing it because Assange HAS information or has exposed something that's given them "red faces" (and worse).

Halting Assange's information pipeline of leakers and whistleblowers has taken on monumental proportions for the PTb - enough to spark a serious diplomatic row.

Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

The UK's position is that it has a duty to hand Assange to Sweden, and that the Ecuadorians, by sheltering Assange, have used their diplomatic facility in London for non-diplomatic purposes. The UK accordingly pointed out to the Ecuadorians that continuing to shelter Assange could have repercussions on the relations between Ecuador and the UK. The UK pointed out that UK law contains provisions for the cases in which diplomatic facilities are employed for non-diplomatic purposes, including revocation of embassy status

Can you point to me ONE example of Britain EVER doing that to a foreign embassy in England?

Even when Britain has declared war on another country, the diplomatic embassies are not "invaded". The diplomats are escorted out of the country civilly.

See here (Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, 1987): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46

This law is a direct result of the Libyan Embassy incident of 1984, and allows the government to remove diplomatic status from premises being used for purposes other than carrying out a diplomatic mission.

against Argentina, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ireland (hell even the Irish embassy stayed open and unmolested) blah, blah, blah... where "undiplomatic" actions at those embassies were certainly being carried out like spying and illegal weapons purchases, the Brits have never taken this action against another embassy.

So yeah, not really.

Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:42 AM - Edit history (1)

incompatible with the Vienna Convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations" ...

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: "We have consistently made our position clear in our discussions with the government of Ecuador.

"The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences and we remain determined to fulfil this obligation.

"We have an obligation to extradite Mr Assange and it is only right that we give Ecuador the full picture ...


UK threatened to arrest Assange inside embassy, says Ecuadorean minister
Ricardo Patino says the UK has threatened to enter its embassy in London and arrest the WikiLeaks founder
Damien Pearse
Wednesday 15 August 2012 18.19 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/15/uk-arrest-julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador

UK forces will storm the Ecuadorian embassy, but rather that should Ecuador choose to interfere with the enforcement of a UK court decision and the UK's ability to honor a treaty obligation, then the UK is itself free to reconsider the exact nature of its diplomatic relations with Ecuador, in particular whether all Ecuadorian embassy staff should be expelled and the embassy status of the existing flat be cancelled

No doubt the UK prefers not to employ such options, as representing a tedious nuisance for everyone, but if the Ecuadorians are hoping to make an intelligent decision, based on all the facts, the UK wants to provide information that the Ecuadorians might have overlooked

They -- or some unnamed third country with whom they have a "special relationship" -- must really have a hard-on to see this guy extradited -- or rendered.

just as certainly as it values its relations with the great nation of Sweden. The UK believes strongly in the importance of international law, just as certainly as it values the importance of international law

After considering the matter slowly and carefully, however, the UK has probably concluded that Mr Assange is the subject of a Swedish warrant, that the Swedes have sued in UK to enforce said warrant, that the UK courts have decided said suit on behalf of the Swedes, that Mr Assange declined any further appeal, that Mr Assange has been directed to surrender to police for extradition, and that Mr Assange is in violation of his bail conditions

Examining the matter in more detail, the UK has probably noticed that Mr Assange has not surrendered to police in the UK, because the Ecuadorian embassy shelters him

After further considering the matter slowly and carefully, however, the UK is probably aware that Ecuador maintains in London an ambassador whose credentials have been properly accepted at the Court of St James, that the UK has signed various treaties to protect diplomats with their families and staff, that these treaties represent important international understandings, that these treaties apply in particular to the Ecuadorian mission, and that London is generally pleased to host Quito's mission because the mission lubricates relations between the countries to the benefit of both

Unfortunately, at the present moment, the UK has also noticed that the Ecuadorian embassy might seem to interfere with the enforcement of a judgment of the UK courts and might appear to prevent the UK from honoring a treaty obligation with its near-neighbor Sweden

It is probable that the UK has thoroughly discussed this matter with Ecuador over a period of several months now, in the hopes of explaining to Ecuador not only the operation of the UK courts and the safeguards available at law to parties of suits in those courts but also the overall importance to the UK of honoring the domestic rule of law as well as its international treaty obligations and in particular its obligations to the great nation of Sweden

It is also probable that the UK has explored with Ecuador the question of Ecuadorian involvement in this matter, pointing out to Ecuador that adherence to the rule of law would suggest that Ecuador's interests might best have been served if the issues were raised prior and timely in the UK courts rather than by post hoc extrajudicial interference

If, however, after still further considering the matter slowly and carefully, the UK should begin to find that Ecuador is willing to use its diplomatic mission to prevent the enforcement of judgments of domestic courts in the UK and to interfere in the UK's ability to honor its own treaty obligations with friendly neighboring states, then dedication to the rule of law in both domestic and international matters will require the UK to take further steps, to ensure that the UK can enforce judgments of its own courts and can honor its own treaty obligations, for which reason the UK will naturally want its good friend, the great nation of Ecuador, to understand just how very seriously the UK regards the judgments of its own courts and the honoring of its own treaty obligations

That would make the UK sort of like the international version of South Carolina circa 1861.

all these govt's are angry only because assange brought light to bear upon their lies and machinations concerning Iraq, Blair,Bush et al. To hell with that prime minister. may they all one day choke on their unrighteous anger. Assange is one of my heroes.

demands for criminal prosecution and even assassination of Assange by public officials, torture of Manning, just for no particular reason?

Ecuadorian officials that it was within its power to "reclaim" embassy property if necessary ...

August 15, 2012 6:50 PM
Ecuador official: U.K. made threat over Assange
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57494115/ecuador-official-u.k-made-threat-over-assange/

They can claim the same vague "reasons" as the Brits and force the British embassy staff and all British citizens out of their country at gunpoint and the Brits can do nothing about it, just like they are forcing on the Ecuadorians.
I'd sure hate to be a limey in Quito (or anywhere else in South America) tomorrow knowing thier home government just declared war on Ecuador.

but has merely, quietly and behind the scenes, reminded Quito that the Ecuadorian mission operates in London under revocable permissions offered by the UK, that Ecuador's diplomatic credentials were accepted in London to further ordinary diplomatic work, that under international law Quito's embassy and staff are to abide by the law of the host country, and that the purpose of the diplomatic mission is not to shelter fugitives from criminal justice

The UK is not in any hurry to act here, and if the UK acts, the action will not resemble the ugly spectre you raise, no matter how much you might relish it

That an act of war committed upon their embassy in London would make targets of the British embassy and staff in Quito.
Assange is no longer on British soil, he's on Ecuadoran soil. Sweden should be the ones dealing with Ecuador, not UK.

I don't think that recognizing a quid-pro-quo action could quite possibly happen necessarily makes one an "enemy of diplomacy."

However, I do realize that advertising it as such, while adding nothing of any substantive value, does allow one the melodrama needed to better validate their presumptions.

like this. Since 1987 when they instituted these rules, they've basically been at war with Argentina, Iraq, Ireland, Afghanistan etc. etc all of whom have most certainly been involved in illegal activities for an embassy like spying and arms dealing. Yet the UK has NEVER threatened action like this.

You can continue to post this but it doesn't change the facts that this move by the UK has created an international incident that has rocked the very foundations of diplomacy and embassy status because it's so beyond the pale.

I wonder what their agenda is?

in certain cases within living memory

their sovereign rights in England, then "invade" the non-embassy, and make an arrest.

(say) that its ambassador and staff are persona non grata and that recognition of its embassy will be withdrawn in seven days; after the expulsion and withdrawal of embassy recognition, the UK would be quite free to enter the flat and arrest Assange

There are various reasons the UK does not want to do that

But the UK contemplates the possibility because Ecuador, contrary to diplomatic law and custom, is using its mission to obstruct the judgment of the UK courts and to interfere with the UK's ability to honor its obligations to Sweden

The general diplomatic community might have some sympathy for Ecuador's intervention, were Assange in instant danger in either the UK or Sweden. But in fact both are stable countries, governed by the rule of law; Assange has moved freely in both countries without incident, and he actually applied for residence in Sweden in 2010. So Ecuador has tossed a large cream pie into its own face, though no one will hurry to tell them as much

Nothing like ramping up the tensions on this diplomatic row....



Assange must have some pretty damning information for the Brits (cough*the US*cough) to step things up to this level. If this doesn't give some pause to those people who have already adjudicated Mr. Assange, demonstrating the absolute irrationality in the persecution of this man, then I don't know what will.

Have the British EVER invaded a foreign embassy located in the UK? Is there a precedent for this??

But not over this.

This is just blatant stupidity over nothing. The spooks are freaked out that they might have to work in the light of day all the time. Their right to lie without any accountability is being threatened. The world might collapse. Such a challenge for them ...

.......... is the US pulling your strings that much?

Or is this another diversionary tactic because you are not doing well.

You know this is the type of thing that Wikileaks used to expose - government overreach and abuse.

do things legally.

enforcement of which the Ecuadorians have been blocking de facto for several months now

The criminal complaint is between Assange and various parties in Sweden, including the Swedish prosecutorial authorities

The extradition involves negotiated agreements between the UK and Sweden

The Ecuadorians have no standing in either matter: they are interfering, to no real purpose not only in the internal affairs of the UK, but also in the external affairs of the UK: the theory, under which Ecuador has conducted this interference, involves not Sweden nor the UK (the parties actually involved), nor Ecuador itself (an uninvolved third-party), but a second uninvolved third-party state

making him a person of interest to Ecuador as well since he's also helped expose US interference in Ecuadorean affairs.

The charges from Sweden are transparently trumped up in order to facilitate Assange's extradition to the US and I presume anyone taking them seriously is perceived as slightly daft by now.

Diplomats have left, and been allowed to leave, many countries for "crimes" far more serious than Assange's (he's been accused of a broken condom ).

Have the British EVER invaded another country's embassy in England?

Do you ask yourself why they're going to this extreme? Over this man?

If Assange believes that the Swedish charges are trumped-up and that he is being prosecuted in Sweden, for some reason other than a prosecutor's genuine intent to work justice in the face of an alleged crime, he can have recourse in Sweden

cannot become a substitute for law

cannot become the norm, contagious as they seem to be.

What i see is somebody who fled a country where he was wanted for questioning(as well as wanting a dna sample from him) the day before it happened, and them having filed a rather common sense warrant for his arrest with Interpol

Interpol acknowledged the warrant and determined it was legit thus letting others know

Assange tries to stop it from happening by way of court in the UK and after a number of rounds in court they ruled that Sweden had enough grounds for the warrant and for him to be extradited

Assange replied by skipping bail and fleeing into the embassy he currently is in.

Where exactly is the 'International machinations'? I mean this is how the warrant system, Interpol and cooperation between countries have worked for ages upon ages in regards to criminals.


Besides this could all have been over 2 years or so ago if Assange had not fled and went to answer the questions as well as permitting the dna sample the day he was supposed

And allowing people to skirt the law was the definition of corruption.

These facts seem lost on Assange apologists.

from a cell in Gitmo. Which of course, is why Sweden refuses to promise not to turn him over to the US. If it were simply about facing criminal charges in Sweden, that promise would be a no-brainer.

...someone who isn't even their citizen from the rest of the world?

What has Assange done to warrant international support? What did his document dump accomplish? How has the world changed because of him? Where are his 'poison pill' documents?

In a vault with Romney's tax returns?

Mexico routinely requires the US to waive the possibility of the death penalty before extraditing criminals to the US. And countries around the world give asylum tl wanted criminals, ex-dictators, and the like.
I have no idea if Assange is guilty of the allegations/charges or not. But its quite odd that UK is making such a brouhaha over him, to the point of violating treaties, invading foreign embassies, risking diplomatic relations, and outraging the world over this. It certainly makes me think its not at all about an alleged sex crime, its about something much bigger, which then calls into question the validity of the sex crime charges.
Quite obviously, the US is worried about what other documents Wikileaks has in their possession. That they are pulling strings from behind the curtains indicates they aren't going to follow laws, but are going to whisk him off to a secret site for some "enhanced interrogation". Assange has every reason to be worried, and Ecuador is well within their rights to demand the law be followed before extraditing him.

He is wanted for questioning. Interpol supports that. The U.K. appeals process for 2 years supports that. Even Australia supports that!

Questioning a suspect or witness outside jurisdiction is a simple matter, done all the time. If that was what this were all about, it would have been done long ago, and been non-news.
The fact that Sweden and UK have upped the ante, to the point of violating international treaties, threatening to invade an embassy, and courting world outrage, serves to greatly substantiate Assange's claims.

They put some pressure in their communication and maybe they should not have.

And I don't know why Sweden won't come to Assange. If the U.K. is our puppet, then it would be a simple matter to extradite him whether he is in the U.K. or Sweden.

But why does Assange get to jerk the justice system around? He's done that for 2 years. Enough.

1) the womens story has changed several times. They deleted texts, which when recovered contradicts their claims.
2) One of the Swedish prosecuters, as a former govt justice official, authorized extraordinary rendition of a person to Egypt for torture, at the request of the US.
3) Its no secret the US would like to get their hands on him, to at least silence him if not more.
4) Sweden refuses to guarantee they won't hand him over to the US or any other third party.

All indications that no matter Assanges guilt or innocence, what Sweden is seeking is not justice, but a pretext for handing him over to US for extraordinary rendition.

of the arrest warrant but chose not to do so: they therefore forfeit the point

Your pathetic defense of illegal actions is duly noted. Perhaps you have a dog in the fight inre illegal detention/torture/"disappearing"?

It is ridiculous that the British government would even consider making a diplomatic incident over this.

-- Mal

are willing to endure. Every embassy around the world would object since their own diplomats would suddenly be in serious jeopardy, globally, at that kind of precedent.

A public street arrest of Assange if he were a named Ecuadorean diplomat would have such tremendous implications for the diplomatic community, it would create a firestorm internationally imho.

That the Brits are even threatening to do this is breathtaking and indicates to me how badly they (cough*the US*cough) want him.

And recognition of credentials is regularly withdrawn: "country-X expelled country-Y's ambassador today"

like they have with every other single diplomat handled like this in the UK, with safe passage.

Just like they have with murderers, genocidal dictators, spies, law breakers and every other "diplomatic" personnel - via an escorted ride to Heathrow unmolested by the police or private citizens. Yup, that would be just fine for Assange as well. Since the UK has a precedent in how it has handled other cases like this, Assange should be treated just like the rest.

I don't believe he's a criminal. But clearly you do. So even if we are to assume you are correct, then he should be treated the same as the other "criminals" the UK has "expelled".

Or any of the other "criminals"?

This isn't about the UK suddenly finding some kind of legal backbone. Its doing the US's dirty work.

Assange should be "expelled" like any others for his "crimes" if we're going to talk about consistency with the law.

During the multiple years he was in court, within arms reach of dozens of police officers?

internationally well known. He's a hero in many place in the ME, Latin America and more with his exposure of the disgusting machinations of the US diplomatic corps.

Its not so simple to disappear Assange into Gitmo as it is to disappear "rebel fighters" off the "battlefield" of Afghanistan....

Bradley Manning's despicable treatment hasn't inspired a lot of confidence in anyone, and he's a US soldier being held in US detention. Assange is right to fear something worse for himself.

We gotta clap our hands together real hard so he can be free!

*clap *clap
*clap *clap
*clap *clap

Live free Assange, Live free Assange!

I'd donate if I could, but I'm a poor college kid.
Also, last I heard, visa or paypal wouldn't let me.