Thread: London Police threatens to storm Ecuador's Embassy

Originally Posted by BDunnell

The UK hasn't actually done anything yet! I suspect it won't, either, now the letter has been revealed. The precedent would be just too dangerous.

The fact that they even thought about it is bad enough in today's already tense world.

Originally Posted by BleAivano

Malbec from what i understand Sweden and USA have signed some sort of agreement about the lending
of arrested people. the USA and UK does not have this type of agreement.

Also 8 years ago two Egyptian asylum seekers were extradite from Sweden to Egypt with the help of CIA.
These two were later tortured in Egypt during interrogation and sentenced to long prison sentences by a military tribunal.

Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, the UK and USA do not have that kind of agreement, it is far more powerful than that and is weighted more heavily in favour of the US. It was introduced in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and is one way, ie the same does not apply for British requests to extradite from the US.

It does not matter whether the person has been arrested, the US can request the British to arrest the person on their behalf. It does not matter whether the charges the US wants them to face are legal in the UK nor if the UK has already found them innocent of the same charges. The defendant does not need to be informed of the charges. The evidence only has to be presented to the home secretary and does not require a judicial review. It also does not matter whether the punishment the person may receive at the hands of the US judicial system are way in excess of that considered fair here, which is a consideration for extradition to other countries.

Which is why I raised several examples, Babar Ahmed, the Natwest executives and several computer hackers, all of whom have been extradited to the US or are facing extradition.

Extradition Act 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You raise the case of two Egyptians extradited by Sweden via the US to Egypt who were tortured. So what? Do you think Britain hasn't done worse? Haven't you heard of the case of the Libyan rebel leader who it turns out MI6 captured and extradited to Libya so Gaddafi's forces could torture him? Britain went in fully for extraordinary rendition, both in terms of capturing and handling/extraditing prisoners.

The idea that it would be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden rather than the UK is laughable. Please don't persist in this myth.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I would tend to agree with you, but this article presents quite a reasonable counter-argument:

Julian Assange's right to asylum | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

This article does not compare the Swedish extradition treaty with the US with that of the British, and the type of justice he'd receive in the US is not directly relevant as it will be the same whether he went from the UK or Sweden.

I fully agree that Sweden's record in extradition is by no means perfect but that ignores the rather incredible arrangements our country has with the US which beggar belief in its one sidedness and lack of transparency.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't see how this can be achieved without his leaving the embassy, and thus being extradited to the US on charges far more trumped-up than the rape ones. It has, as I said before, become an impossible situation.

This is my point, during the period Assange was essentially free to roam around London the US could have applied for extradition. This didn't happen despite the legal mechanisms being in place. That the Americans haven't pressed for it should tell you a lot, that Assange is claiming the danger of being extradited to the US is why he is opposing deportation to Sweden should tell you even more...

Originally Posted by ioan

The fact that they even thought about it is bad enough in today's already tense world.

'They'? It could very well have been an ill-advised individual. Far be it for me to stick up for a British government I disagree with politically, but I find it hard to believe entering a foreign embassy was ever official policy.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

'They'? It could very well have been an ill-advised individual. Far be it for me to stick up for a British government I disagree with politically, but I find it hard to believe entering a foreign embassy was ever official policy.

I very much doubt that such actions are left to be decided by a single individual.

Originally Posted by Malbec

This article does not compare the Swedish extradition treaty with the US with that of the British, and the type of justice he'd receive in the US is not directly relevant as it will be the same whether he went from the UK or Sweden.

I fully agree that Sweden's record in extradition is by no means perfect but that ignores the rather incredible arrangements our country has with the US which beggar belief in its one sidedness and lack of transparency.

Yes, I agree.

Originally Posted by Malbec

This is my point, during the period Assange was essentially free to roam around London the US could have applied for extradition. This didn't happen despite the legal mechanisms being in place. That the Americans haven't pressed for it should tell you a lot, that Assange is claiming the danger of being extradited to the US is why he is opposing deportation to Sweden should tell you even more...

Well, it might. We don't know anything much about the rape allegations.

Clouding the discussion still further, of course, are the views of those in the eyes of whom Assange can do no wrong — David Icke-style conspiracy theorists in training, almost.

Originally Posted by Malbec

That the Americans haven't pressed for it should tell you a lot, that Assange is claiming the danger of being extradited to the US is why he is opposing deportation to Sweden should tell you even more...

It tells me that the UK doesn't really want this mess on its doorstep. It's all much nicer if Assange is arrested in Sweden, because then the British Govt. can go about its merry way and pretend that the whole thing never happened.

I suspect that Assange wouldn't even see a court in Sweden anyway. He'd be arrested and simply dumped in Gitmo, maybe to be tortured and because Assange is an Australian citizen, the Australian Govt. would continue to say nothing about it as they had done with David Hicks.
That little message on the inside front cover of Australian passports about the Australian Govt rendering assistance to people in distress and danger is pretty well much completely useless.

Originally Posted by Rollo

It tells me that the UK doesn't really want this mess on its doorstep. It's all much nicer if Assange is arrested in Sweden, because then the British Govt. can go about its merry way and pretend that the whole thing never happened.

Not certain about that. I think it's gone too far for that to be an option any longer.

If anybody is interested, hereäs a link to detailed accounting of the whole mess.
Anna Ardin, Ms W, Julian Assange och Åklagarmyndigheten « Aktivarum

It's in Swedish but there are online translators...
The link provided points out that the warrant for arrest was issued by a "watch" or "duty" procecutor after getting a phone call from a cop, and the same day releae to the press broke the Grundlag ÅM --Åklagarmyndighet ---Prosecutor authority is supposed to enforce regarding protecting the identity of the accused.
Good first move: -brake the law.

i would like to remind you that when the charges first came in.

Assange did cooperate with the first prosecutor and willingly met her for questioning.
However she closed the case since >>no crime had been committed.<<

Shortly after Marianne Ny (prosecutor) re-opened the case despite that the only new evidence that
had come in, is a broken unused condom (no DNA was found on it so it could not have been used).
Assange was still in Sweden and again made himself available to questioning by the prosecution.

However they were not interested in question him. For one month the prosecution
did not do anything. There was one interrogation scheduled by it was cancelled by the
prosecution side. NO more efforts were made from the prosecution side to interrogate Assange.

After that month Assange got tired of waiting and asked if they needed to question him any more.
The prosecutor said no they did not need that. Assange then asked if he could leave the country
which the the prosecutor granted him the right to do.

Now this is where things start to get suspicious. As i said the prosecutor granted Assange to leave
the country. However as soon as he does that he is put up on interpol's red notice list over wanted persons,
Assange was wanted for questioning.

The prosecutors only comment so far is that its important that as soon as possible,
Assange must get to Sweden so that she can question him.

The questions are then.
.

1. Why did the prosecutor question him during the extra month that he stayed in Sweden?
2. Why did she not prosecute Assange while he was in Sweden?
3. Why did she say that he could leave the country if she wanted to question him?
4. Why re-open a case when no new evidence, expect an unused condom, have come in?
5. Why is the prosecution side not interested in questioning him?

Also don't forget that the Swedish prime himself committed a crime live on public when saying
that Assange should come here and take his punishment.

In Sweden the prime minister has in no way the right to make such a statement about an individual case,
especially not when the suspect is not convicted and not even prosecuted. Its called ministerstyre.
And what happened with the whole thing of the Presumption of innocence?

One more thing. in Sweden we have two degrees os suspicion. Skäligen and Sannolika.

JA was first considered Skäligen (the lower degree) but this was later changed to "på Sannolika skäl (higher degree)."
just so that Martianne Ny could put out a EAW. Despite that there still were no crime that had been committed.

For the second higher degree, a witness or a technical evidence is required. In this case neither exists.

Originally Posted by ioan

I very much doubt that such actions are left to be decided by a single individual.

There was no action though. Nor was a threat made to raid the embassy.

A letter was written to the Ecuadorian embassy which the recipient chose to publicise. We do not know at what level the decision was made to write that letter but it stated two clear facts, that Britain has the right to suspend the diplomatic immunity of their embassy and also that Britain has a legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden. It was not an ultimatum nor was a specific action ever threatened if the Ecuadorians didn't comply, therefore it was not a statement of policy. I don't see why such a letter would necessarily require political approval. The failure of either DC or William Hague to escalate this problem despite the media's best attempts to stir up a crisis back up that threatening to raid the embassy is not part of British government policy.

One has to wonder though why noone has questioned whether it is right for Assange to claim asylum or for Ecuador to give it. Assange is not facing prosecution for his beliefs, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. He's being asked to face criminal charges (regardless of whether one agrees with the Swedish definition of rape). Since when has it become the norm for people to claim asylum to escape inconvenient criminal charges?

Originally Posted by Rollo

It tells me that the UK doesn't really want this mess on its doorstep. It's all much nicer if Assange is arrested in Sweden, because then the British Govt. can go about its merry way and pretend that the whole thing never happened.

That would be a serious policy reversal by the UK then.

Sadly history shows that Britain is more than willing to hand over its own citizens to the US or transfer them to a third state such as Pakistan where attitudes towards things like torture are more relaxed so that interrogation can be outsourced. The British have even sent their own MI5/6 staff to those torture sessions so they could get the information first hand, although of course they wouldn't actually lay their own hands on the prisoners.

If Britain has decided to make an exception for Assange, a non-British national, then it would be extending him a courtesy it doesn't give to its own nationals....

Originally Posted by BleAivano

The Police in London threatens to storm Ecuador's embassy unless they hand over
Julian Assange...

I thought a local constabulary had no jurisdiction in foreign matters at all

Originally Posted by Malbec

There was no action though.

Luckily.

Originally Posted by Malbec

Nor was a threat made to raid the embassy.

They just tried to intimidate them, how nice.

Originally Posted by Malbec

A letter was written to the Ecuadorian embassy which the recipient chose to publicise. We do not know at what level the decision was made to write that letter ...

And at what level do you think that an official letter is written to the attention a foreign country's Embassy? At a very high level, which makes this case rather serious.

Originally Posted by Malbec

...but it stated two clear facts, that Britain has the right to suspend the diplomatic immunity of their embassy...

Under conditions which are not met in this case.

Originally Posted by Malbec

...and also that Britain has a legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden.

Which is none of Ecuador's business and a situation in which GB put itself in.

And none of the above warrant the writing and sending of that letter.

Originally Posted by Malbec

It was not an ultimatum nor was a specific action ever threatened if the Ecuadorians didn't comply, therefore it was not a statement of policy.

Wait a second, stop there. You think that sending an official letter to a foreign country's Embassy where you tell them that you have the right to suspend the Embassy's diplomatic immunity is not a highly offensive action?!
This is something which is done only in extreme cases like war between two countries!
Don't even try to play it down, because from a diplomatic point of view that letter is an enormous faux pas!

Originally Posted by Malbec

I don't see why such a letter would necessarily require political approval.

That's because you didn't grasp the gravity of the act. Cause you think that only size matters. Well, nope, Ecuador has the same rights as any other country to have an inviolable Embassy.

Originally Posted by Malbec

The failure of either DC or William Hague to escalate this problem despite the media's best attempts to stir up a crisis back up that threatening to raid the embassy is not part of British government policy.

There is no failure to escalate it, due to the size of the cock up this is being clarified out of the public view. This kind of monumental crap is something no one wants out in public, certainly not after improving UK's image due to the hosting of the Olympic Games. Things will slowly transpire though, just wait and see.

Originally Posted by Malbec

One has to wonder though why noone has questioned whether it is right for Assange to claim asylum or for Ecuador to give it.

There's a bunch of people doing it, in the media and in various blogs. Wouldn't call them noone.

Originally Posted by Malbec

Assange is not facing prosecution for his beliefs, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. He's being asked to face criminal charges (regardless of whether one agrees with the Swedish definition of rape). Since when has it become the norm for people to claim asylum to escape inconvenient criminal charges?

Assange has been called a terrorist by US officials and some of them asked for lifetime imprisonment for him, even though he wasn't even yet officially charged. That looks to me like a Country who is bullying an individual. I guess that disregard to human rights doesn't bother you as you didn't even bother to mention this side of the story.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And it's a travesty if the embassy gets 'stormed'. After all, that would set a dangerous precedent.

Well the both the Iranian revolution and the taliban have already done it, so it's not really a precedent
Heck not even China storms Embassies, so the UK won't either. They'll just declare it a Non-Embassy before going in.

Originally Posted by Malbec

That would be a serious policy reversal by the UK then.

Sadly history shows that Britain is more than willing to hand over its own citizens to the US or transfer them to a third state such as Pakistan where attitudes towards things like torture are more relaxed so that interrogation can be outsourced. The British have even sent their own MI5/6 staff to those torture sessions so they could get the information first hand, although of course they wouldn't actually lay their own hands on the prisoners.

If Britain has decided to make an exception for Assange, a non-British national, then it would be extending him a courtesy it doesn't give to its own nationals....

The UK doesn't give a damn about Assange as it doesn't give a damn about any individual, and this is the same for most countries on Earth. However the image that the UK is trying to keep in the world is what is important and in the eyes of the world a case like that of Assange is so much more visible than that of many unknown individuals that have been extradited in the past without even a thought.

Originally Posted by ioan

How the F' can you storm an embassy in the 21 century?

you "relieve" it of it's diplomatic status before going in

How is it possible that a European country, UK or Sweden, can even think about turning over a person to the USA where the death penalty can be pronounced or even worse torture by government agents is not illegal?!

one word:
poodle

Originally Posted by donKey jote

you "relieve" it of it's diplomatic status before going in

Not even needed, because the UK police is the one supposed to be in charge of keeping them safe.

Originally Posted by donKey jote

one word:
poodle

Yep, we live in a world full of poodles!