You can just smell the fear and anger.

for years if necessary. I think the Brits and the US found that out this week and are thoroughly frustrated, so they decided raid the Ecuadoran embassy or threaten to to try to intimidate them and Assange.

In a couple of years, the political situation in Europe may have changed. Hopefully France and Iceland are the beginning of a rejection of the Neocons and more sane governments will be in power. It's happened before for persecuted people who simply waited out the bad situations that drove them to seek asylum.

my understanding is that this british poutrage is about not going to be interviewed again?

and have the women changed their story? it wasn't rape - according to them - or at least they didn't want to charge him with rape.

I think it answers most of your questions. I am always surprised at how few Wikileaks supporters have read the actual legal determinants of the case.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

Assange supporters read or don't read is bull shit.

supporters don't know they exist.** I presume you have not read the court findings because of the nature and content of your questions. If you HAVE read the court findings, then I would expect you to be able to reference the parts that are unclear to you.


**Which is, I suspect, exactly how Mr. Assange wants it. After all, the testimony of his Swedish attorney did not go well for him.

I mean think about it. It is an act of war to invade a Foreign Nation's accredited and recognized Embassy. To risk an act of war just to have a man questioned. Again, Assange hasn't been charged with a crime. He has been accused, but not legally charged. There are no official charges levied against him. The Swedish excuse which looks mighty thin is that they want him in Sweden for "questioning" by authorities. Despite the long tradition of investigators going to where the subject it to question him Sweden swears that they can only ask Assange questions in Sweden. That sounds fishy to me.

We have a winner. The Brits and the Swedes are behaving as they are at the behest of the US and for no other reason.

why would Ecuador risk a long drawn out diplomatic fiasco with the UK, the US and several other large western governments? How is this in the best long term best interests of Ecuador?

of countries - all of whom are fed up with our imperialism, exploitation and greed at their expense.

Even with Chavez so ill, the leadership of that block has been extremely adept at keeping a very strong presence on the international stage, in opposition to the US, the UK, the Euro etc.

I'm guessing more than a few Central and South American countries are supremely jealous of Correa's brilliance in this but one thing's for sure, they've got his back 110%.

in this entire event.

Assange must have something that has so deeply angered Correa which has stiffened his resolve. And he must also likewise have something that has so deeply angered the US, the UK (and Sweden?) that they've gone to these measures to silence him.

nt

Someone can't be charged in absentia so the interview that Sweden wants to conduct would be the point at which charges were laid. He's broken UK law by skipping bail, it really doesn't matter if he's innocent of the accusations or not he's violated his bail terms and is wanted in the UK for that crime. Sweden doesn't use the same law system as the UK and US so can't be expected to follow UK or US procedures.

The UK government haven't threatened to invade Ecuador's accredited and recognised embassy, they've pointed out that there are provisions in UK law to remove that recognition if the embassy isn't being used for diplomatic purposes, a provision put in place after the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher from the Libyan embassy in London.

It's also worth noting that Article 41 of the Vienna Convention:

Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.

If the Ecuadorian embassy isn't respecting British law then the UK government would be well within its rights to revoke the embassy accreditation and expel their ambassador.

There's been talk of Ecuador naming Assange a diplomat but diplomatic credentials are granted by the host country, not the embassy. Ecuador would have to apply to the UK government to make Assange a diplomat which would be rejected. Nor can they pack him in a cardboard box, declare it a diplomatic pouch and send him to the nearest airport. Diplomatic pouches are only respected when they actually contain documents related to diplomatic activity, they can be, and are, intercepted and opened such as when Italy intercepted 40 kilos of cocaine in a diplomatic pouch.

I'm fairly sure that it is pretty unusual for any country to allow people to leave another country by seeking asylum at their embassy. If you were wanted by the police in a foreign country and sought refuge at your own nation's embassy they'd almost always arrange for you to leave, perhaps with an embassy official to assure that you were being treated fairly but you'd get little direct support. When Chen Guangcheng sought protection at the US embassy in Beijing the US negotiated with China and he ended up leaving the protection of the embassy. It's worth adding that China demanded that the US apologise for the incident and never interfere in China's domestic matters in such way again, see Article 41 again - China would have been well within its rights to expel the US ambassador from China and suspend the embassy, similar to what the UK has told Ecuador and backed that up with the specific parts of UK law that would allow for the UK to do so.

You ask why England (the United Kingdom really) would risk an act of war? It wouldn't be an act of war since the embassy would just be a set of offices owned or rented by another country. You might also want to ask, why would Ecuador risk pissing off the UK, Sweden and potentially the whole European Union by giving asylum to Assange? Even if the UK government decides to look the other way and let Assange leave the country, what does Ecuador gain?

they slipped him out in the trunk of a car and he's already in Ecuador.

Too many spy thriller type movies I guess. But the hope persists. That if those fucktards revoke Ecuador's diplomatic status and goes marching in there, they find....nobody. Would serve them right.

Seriously. Because Sweden is unable to question Assange in England? Only in Sweden? About a cad with a bad condom charges that at least one accuser has recanted?

Rape, my ass. This was a set up from day 1.

LONDON (AP) -- Scotland Yard says it has arrested a handful of people outside the Ecuadorean Embassy in London as supporters gather to defend WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

A police spokesman said three people have been arrested. He didn't give a reason, but an Associated Press reporter at the scene saw several people being dragged away from the embassy after refusing police orders to move across the street Thursday.

Police and protesters converged on the embassy in the upscale Knightsbridge neighborhood of London Wednesday night after the Ecuadorean government accused Britain of threatening to "assault" the mission if Assange weren't handed over.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WIKILEAKS_ASSANGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-16-06-47-45

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html

CARACAS, Venezuela — The government of Ecuador is prepared to allow Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, to remain in its embassy in London indefinitely under a type of humanitarian protection, a government official said in the capital, Quito, on Wednesday night. Seeking asylum, Mr. Assange has been holed up for two months in the embassy, where the police scuffled with and arrested some of his supporters on Thursday.

Amid an escalating confrontation with Britain over Mr. Assange, Ecuadorean officials said they would announce the decision of the country’s president, Rafael Correa, on Thursday. The official said that the British government had made it clear it would not allow Mr. Assange to leave the country to travel to Ecuador, so even with a grant of asylum or similar protection, he would probably remain stuck in the embassy.

In advance of the announcement from Quito, supporters of Mr. Assange gathered outside the embassy in London on Thursday, refusing police orders to move across the road until officers bundled three of them into police vans and arrested them.

On Wednesday, Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, said that the British authorities had threatened to barge into the country’s embassy in London if officials did not hand over Mr. Assange. “Today we have received from the United Kingdom an explicit threat in writing that they could assault our embassy in London if Ecuador does not hand over Julian Assange,” Mr. Patiño said at a news conference in Quito, adding defiantly, “We are not a British colony.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-asylum-live

13:38 BST
Asylum is granted

Ecuador is to grant political asylum to Julian Assange, says Patino.

...so they can enter it, then I for one will be demonstrating in front of the nearest G.B. embassy. That would be an outrageous and unprecedented breach of international law and cannot be allowed to stand -- unless of course we are prepared for the world's legal underpinnings to change once and for all.

I say this as someone who recognizes that Assange is no saint. On the other hand, he has provided the means for people to reveal secrets that should be revealed -- not only war crimes by U.S. soldiers, but government corruption in several other countries as well.

Whatever one thinks of the Assange situation, revoking the embassy's status solely for the purpose of retrieving someone who was granted asylum there is illegal, immoral, untenable and intolerable.

arrest all of its UK citizens there, up to and including the ambassador.

If Britain is going to piss on 450+ years of diplomatic precedent, it should be prepared for the consequences.

makes perfect sense.

Even of you think Assange innocent of these charges, do you deny that Sweden has the right to designate the acts described as crimes?

exposed the Iraqi war crimes by the US. Mark Stephens, Assange’s lead lawyer in London, has repeatedly said, without providing details, that ‘a senior political figure’ worked to have the case reopened.

Assange stipulates that political interference in the case is confirmed by the decision of the Swedish prosecutors to drop the initial arrest warrant and to downgrade the investigation to one of ‘molestation’, a minor offense. Those decisions were reversed in late August when the chief state prosecutor, Marianne Ny, overruling a subordinate prosecutor in Stockholm, Eva Finne, restored the original allegations, saying that rape was the appropriate charge for the evidence on file with the prosecutors.

Furthermore, I've heard that at least one of the women has recanted.

Sweden's actions have certainly been highly suspicious and reek of a vendetta by the US. Their refusal to agree that they won't extradite Assange to the US if he returned to Sweden for questioning underscores (for me at least) that this isn't really about what happened in Sweden but is really about Wikileaks and the US.

a junior one.

I gave you the link to the proceedings at Belmarsh, where Mr. Assange was invited to prove his allegations regarding political motivation.

Perhaps you could cite an instance where any of your, or Mr. Assange's allegations was proved?

And again--those are the four charges. Which ones aren't crimes that Mr. Assange should be questioned about?

But its pretty obvious to the casual observer.

Why else would the UK be so heavy handed about not allowing Assange to travel to Ecuador over such a thin and low impact type of sexual "molestation" on two women who had consensual sex with him?

Its pretty obvious that if he goes to face charges in Sweden he will either get off, or be slapped with a minor punishment for screwing without a condom. Everyone knows that that is just a precursor to extradition to the US where Ecuador is concerned that he will face the death penalty, which is a barbaric medieval practice they do not believe in.

I really can't wait for you to tell me what is "low-impact" about rape.

by the UK. This kind of international incident is unprecedented. The UK is basically willing to overthrow centuries of diplomatic law and tradition over these "allegations" which are by no means as clear as the court docs imply. The women did not want to press rape charges (in fact they bragged about sleeping with him, continued partying with him days later, have publicly said they don't believe Assange is violent nor do they fear him), the case was initially dropped but was resurrected after Wikileaks published US war crimes evidence.

This "outrage" is akin to Henry Hyde's "outrage" over Clinton's "perjury". The impeachment was about the perjury, the perjury, the perjury instead of what everyone on the planet could see - it was about taking down one of the most effective presidents on the face of the planet.

and the UK's stunning diplomatic over-reaction...

... means my reaction to THIS episode is very, very different than usual.

But nice attempt to broadbrush. Silly but a good attempt.

Or as Whoopi Goldberg would say, "rape", but not "rape-rape".

if they did, that the sex was not consensual.

This boils down to he said, she said in the worst way.

What evidence other than the verbal testimony of each party can be entered?

I sympathize with victims of date rape, but these specific claims against Assange would be extremely difficult to prove. How could the women prove that this was not a misunderstanding? How could they prove that they did not mislead Assange? How could they prove that they did not consent?

The description of what is alleged to have happened here asks for the question: How did these adult women get into such an intimate position with Assange if they did not plan on having sex? And, if they planned to have sex, why didn't they check on the condom situation first?

And why are the women talking about this episode? It makes them look like fools in the eyes of this old lady.

I was warned about the dangers of allowing men to take liberties with me when I was very young. Apparently, these women, in spite of their maturity were quite willing partners to Assange's advances. Hmmm. The story stinks if you ask me.

I am reminded of the saying: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned -- and Assange scorned two of them. For that he must pay.

Assange should be more careful in his sex life, but so should these women in my opinion.

I doubt those charges you list are what caused the UK to threaten Ecuadorean sovereignty

One does not go about whinging in the courts for two years and then disobey a court order. People take offense.

Also, Julian's kind of a wanker.

This unprecedented action in British history, especially with their history of hubris and arrogance demonstrated during their entire imperial career, and despite centuries of massive international conflicts, are only NOW drawing the line in the sand with Assange because of "exceptionalism"???

This is like Henry Hyde telling us its about the perjury (and not about taking down one of the most effective American presidents ever).

Talk about really reaching for some moral justification that's not consistent with reality....

Neither you nor I should be second-guessing the sexual assault charges. Victims do not become UN-victims simply because we like the man who -allegedly- assaulted them.

they believe in certain principals?..and do not merely 'like the man' or see him as a hero?

DNA test shot down hours ago.

There are no victims. They do not describe themselves as victims nor do they want charges.

Why is he dodging an STD test?

You're right, describing the women as victims is my characterization. But they are plaintiffs who made accusations that have been supported by Sweden, Interpol and the entire U.K. appeals system.

Assange has done everything he can to avoid giving further testimony or agreeing to tests.

On edit: it WAS a DNA test that Sweden wanted him to take.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

and never feel safe from those who would avenge his publications.

I wouldn't want anyone to take my DNA if I were Assange either. Assange has a lot of enemies with secret police working around the world.

...behind which they sell out their nations' values.

Part of the reason properties in London are so attractive (and hugely expensive) to foreign investors is that they know if they get caught up in some kind of scandal at home, they can always seek refuge in London, as that is traditionally a kind of "Swiss bank" offshore locale where refugees were NEVER harassed by third parties.

If that's changing, it reduces the value in holding property there.