Thread: London Police threatens to storm Ecuador's Embassy

more fuel to the fire;

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray posted this article this morning. His website - Pastebin.com

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray posted this article this morning. His website went down shortly after.
I copied the article from a google cache in case that too disappeared for some reason. - @dbcoopa.

(One would imagine) you can't just storm an embassy, it's not part of the UK and British police have no jurisdiction there.

Originally Posted by Mark

(One would imagine) you can't just storm an embassy, it's not part of the UK and British police have no jurisdiction there.

It is part of the UK.

Embassies are not the sovereign territory of the country that occupies the premises but only registered offices under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The confusion arises from Article 22.

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

Linky:
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...s/9_1_1961.pdf

...the more you know

How are they going to get Assange out of the building? Out the Ecuador.
How are they going to get Assange out of the UK? By Secret Cable.

Coat please

Whatever happens, it's a travesty. It's a travesty if the two women have a genuine case against Assange and are denied justice by his remaining in the embassy building. It's a travesty if he has in some way been set up. And it's a travesty if the embassy gets 'stormed'. After all, that would set a dangerous precedent. Remember how thousands of East Germans sought refuge inside West German embassies in Warsaw Pact countries before the Berlin Wall fell, because they knew them to be safe havens? Imagine the outrage that would have followed if they had been forcibly removed.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Whatever happens, it's a travesty. It's a travesty if the two women have a genuine case against Assange and are denied justice by his remaining in the embassy building. It's a travesty if he has in some way been set up. And it's a travesty if the embassy gets 'stormed'. After all, that would set a dangerous precedent. Remember how thousands of East Germans sought refuge inside West German embassies in Warsaw Pact countries before the Berlin Wall fell, because they knew them to be safe havens? Imagine the outrage that would have followed if they had been forcibly removed.

I can agree IF there is a case. However the first prosecutor said directly to the women that there were nothing
in their story that could lead to a prosecution. So the case was closed.

Then a new prosecutor came in, Marianne Ny, who re-opened the case but since that
have not done anything more then saying that she can't go to London since its illegal to question someone
in another country. Obviously it is not and the prosecutor herself cannot show where it says that it is illegal.
As late as a few years ago.

A Swedish prosecutor went to Germany to Interrogate Christine Schürrer since she
was a suspect for a double murder. Assange has also said that he wouldn't mind being questioned but that
he did not want to go to Sweden in fear of being extradited to the USA (see Bradley Manning).

If Marianne Ny was so eager in questioning Assange why haven't she gone to London then
so that she could either close the case or prosecute Assange. But she refuses.

The question is also why so much effort is made to this case.
They would never have done it if the suspect had been someone else.

Add to that the statement of Craig Murray (post #2) and it becomes more clear why the
prosecution is so eager in getting him here and not so eager to question him in London.



on a side note the women's lawyer Claes Borgström was involved with a person named
Thomas Quick a man convicted for 8 murders. Claes Borgström was the defence attorney in that case.
Recent digging in the matter revealed that Quick most likely have not committed any of those murders.

How the F' can you storm an embassy in the 21 century?
Whatever happened to the Vienna treaty?
Are we talking about the same country that just hosted the Olympic Games and bragged and boasted about the Olympic spirit = fairness?! Did it roll over in front of it's big brother?

Where will this USA crap influence end?
I guess that next Assange shall move over to the Chinese or Russian Embassy, I bet the UK police will never even dream about raiding any of those two.

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?!

Modern society totally lost it's compass.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Whatever happens, it's a travesty. It's a travesty if the two women have a genuine case against Assange and are denied justice by his remaining in the embassy building. It's a travesty if he has in some way been set up. And it's a travesty if the embassy gets 'stormed'. After all, that would set a dangerous precedent. Remember how thousands of East Germans sought refuge inside West German embassies in Warsaw Pact countries before the Berlin Wall fell, because they knew them to be safe havens? Imagine the outrage that would have followed if they had been forcibly removed.

Read the women's reports again.. That is what it all pivots on. Now, I don't know how to describe the culture of Sweden but let's just say there is a modern veneer lightly draped over a strict Calvinst foundation, and regret and guilt are always just below the surface. Superficially life is much better in the years since I left in 1980, especially after the arrival of lots of Chileno and Argentino political refugees who could counterbalance the perennial "Oh should I, or shouldn't I? Do I like him, does he like me? I don't know what I want to do...(sigh)" which was the overwhelming and maddening norm.
That hand wringing and uncertainty and changing the mind after the fact is all pervasive there and is one reason I chose not to live there because it's maddening.

The 2 wimmins say they willing went home with assange and played bouncy bouncy willingly, and only much later decided they didn't like it.......therefore "they felt violated"...

He may be a creep from many reports, but going home with a creep and deciding much later that you didn't enjoy the boffing you got should not be a crime---in any normal functioning adult world.
Sweden is not however a normal functioning adult world.

(note: the much vaunted "liberated view" regarding matters intimate in my not so limited experience is not a liberated view, I found German and French and English (up Norf) and and Spanish and oh dear Finnish and Israeli wimmins much much more "liberated' (sweet bleedin Jezuz it was fun!). The Swedes tend very strongly to binge drink. Very low total annual consumption of alcohol, but very concentrated when they do....I say their "liberated" reputation comes from them drinking themselves senseless and simply going home with any male left standing, seriously..and then of course regretting and feeling ashamed later. Of course this is my own first hand experience and comparitive to other places with other cultures, but hey what do I know? But agreed the whole mess is a travesty, and the current crisis is a nightmare)
This is what I seriously believe happened to the poor bastid unused to the local way of the world.

more to read: Helene Bergman: The Assange Case goes to JO,the Swedish Ombudsmen for Justice

Originally Posted by BDunnell

After all, that would set a dangerous precedent. Remember how thousands of East Germans sought refuge inside West German embassies in Warsaw Pact countries before the Berlin Wall fell, because they knew them to be safe havens? Imagine the outrage that would have followed if they had been forcibly removed.

This is the biggest issue at stake here and is a massive error by the FCO IMO. I'm sure they are right that the Vienna treaty can be suspended or disregarded in certain situations but I believe that the scenarios envisaged were along the lines of a massive terrorist outrage being coordinated from within an embassy rather than a situation where someone has claimed asylum within one.

If the FCO's interpretation of the Vienna treaty is used worldwide we shouldn't complain if North Korea or China decides to raid the British or American embassies because some dissident has claimed asylum. This is a dangerous precedent to set and Assange simply isn't worth it.

Originally Posted by BleAivano

more to read: Helene Bergman: The Assange Case goes to JO,the Swedish Ombudsmen for Justice

yeah, good ol JO. My dealings with JO were like most dealings with Swedish bureaucracy: totally and utterly useless and in screaming contrast to their stated mission.
I just re-read the specific charges and the crucial point is while the sex with the 2 wimmins was consensual, but he didn't wrap his wiener up in an old inner-tube and the wimmins intent was to force Assange to take an HIV test.
All this to force him to take a HIV test..
The enormity of the stupidity of the Swedish authorities continuing their nonsense more than 2 years after is unimaginable when, if the stupid wimmins were so worried and fearful, maybe sometime in the intervening years THEY could take an HIV test so they can get back to their normal fretful level of fear of everything different.

Originally Posted by ioan

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?!

This is where the conspiracy theory about Assange gets derailed.

The idea that the US is getting Assange deported to Sweden so it would be easier for them to have him extradited again to the US is ridiculous. It is far far easier for the US to have someone deported from the UK than just about anywhere else in the world. The US doesn't even have to reveal the accusations levelled against that person and the evidence against them has only to be shown to the home secretary. Babar Ahmed and the three Natwest executives who are fighting or tried to fight extradition demonstrate this perfectly.

I'm sure Assange knows this, he has had very good legal advice paid for by his supporters. This is why I'm afraid I simply don't buy the reasons he has given for fighting extradition to Sweden.

Now Janvanpurna's portrayal of Swedish society and their attitudes towards rape is something I agree with and its quite probable that Assange used his fame to get his end away without realising the consequences. The fact is though that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it and he should face his prosecutors in a court of law.

From Bleviano's link:
The comments:

1. 
   GalaxyCurse3 augusti 2012 00:21
   Då detta är ett politiskt mål, precis som t.ex The Pirate Bay målet, så har jag svårt att se vad en politiskt tillsatt justitieombudsman bryr sig om att göra.
   
   (Translation; Since this is a political case (goal) precisely like for example The Pirate Bay case, so have I difficult to see what a politically appointed Justice Ombudsman (will) bother themselves to do.)
   
   Svara
   
2. 
   valens4 augusti 2012 08:44
   Case to the Swedish Ombudsman for Justice?
   Is this some kind of joke?
   
   As long as in Sweden the Swedish Ombudsman for Justice (JO) agreed that a former prosecutor who has decided in a dispute between some private people, may notwithstanding act as a court judge involving the same opponents in the same dispute, we cannot be trusted anymore in this so-called Swedish Ombudsman for Justice, in the Swedish low and order unfortunately.
   These are cases for the European Court. Of course the rights according to the European Convention have been violated!
   
   The most interesting is that involved law firm is precisely the same… “Borgström&Bodström”!
   
   (See Swedish JO case no. 4782-2010 subversively changed/added again to case no.5960-2010)
   
   

Doesn't see very welcome news to those who know the system.

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

I just re-read the specific charges and the crucial point is while the sex with the 2 wimmins was consensual, but he didn't wrap his wiener up in an old inner-tube and the wimmins intent was to force Assange to take an HIV test.

As far as I know, the lack of a condom is not mentioned anywhere in the European (as opposed to Swedish) arrest warrant, which is surely the important one in terms of his extradition from the UK to Sweden.

Originally Posted by Malbec

This is where the conspiracy theory about Assange gets derailed.

The idea that the US is getting Assange deported to Sweden so it would be easier for them to have him extradited again to the US is ridiculous. It is far far easier for the US to have someone deported from the UK than just about anywhere else in the world. The US doesn't even have to reveal the accusations levelled against that person and the evidence against them has only to be shown to the home secretary. Babar Ahmed and the three Natwest executives who are fighting or tried to fight extradition demonstrate this perfectly.

I'm sure Assange knows this, he has had very good legal advice paid for by his supporters. This is why I'm afraid I simply don't buy the reasons he has given for fighting extradition to Sweden.

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

Originally Posted by Malbec

The fact is though that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it and he should face his prosecutors in a court of law.

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.

Originally Posted by Malbec

This is the biggest issue at stake here and is a massive error by the FCO IMO. I'm sure they are right that the Vienna treaty can be suspended or disregarded in certain situations but I believe that the scenarios envisaged were along the lines of a massive terrorist outrage being coordinated from within an embassy rather than a situation where someone has claimed asylum within one.

If the FCO's interpretation of the Vienna treaty is used worldwide we shouldn't complain if North Korea or China decides to raid the British or American embassies because some dissident has claimed asylum. This is a dangerous precedent to set and Assange simply isn't worth it.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by ioan

How the F' can you storm an embassy in the 21 century?
Whatever happened to the Vienna treaty?
Are we talking about the same country that just hosted the Olympic Games and bragged and boasted about the Olympic spirit = fairness?! Did it roll over in front of it's big brother?

Where will this USA crap influence end?
I guess that next Assange shall move over to the Chinese or Russian Embassy, I bet the UK police will never even dream about raiding any of those two.

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?!

Modern society totally lost it's compass.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Malbec

This is where the conspiracy theory about Assange gets derailed.

The idea that the US is getting Assange deported to Sweden so it would be easier for them to have him extradited again to the US is ridiculous. It is far far easier for the US to have someone deported from the UK than just about anywhere else in the world. The US doesn't even have to reveal the accusations levelled against that person and the evidence against them has only to be shown to the home secretary. Babar Ahmed and the three Natwest executives who are fighting or tried to fight extradition demonstrate this perfectly.

But the difference is in the basic presumptions of law in the English Speaking countries versus those which law descended directly from old Church Law as in the case in one way or another in all the rest of Europe all the way past the Urals.
English law, and it's descendants concentrate on the exact letter of the law, and a presumption as ancient as the old Angles and Sachens on the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof place on the accuser. Those systems descended from church law have at their center the intention of redemption of the accused, the "return to the fold" of those who have wander astray--and an implict presumption that we are all guilty of some transgression, the only question is what transgression (see further Kafka "I am accused of a crime which i do not know as they will not tell me", cf the inquisition and the so called Moscow Show trials forcing confessions so that the accused can be burned or shot with a clear conscious.)

In the link to the life-time serious feminist journalist she has a quote from one of the accusers:

the woman A's words from the detention memorandum in the case Assange echoed inside me.

As she says:
"I was proud as shít, to get the world’s coolest man in bed and living in my apartment."

Swedish Police, proscecutors and the whole system is notorious for mainly monumental inaction, endless utredningar (vi ska reda ut detta----investigations---vi shall figure out this...one day) , and then occasionally vendetta like fixation on some notable person, and routinely violate Svenska Grundlagen and their own administrative rules on what seems like mere whim---and then after the whim, to prosecute, will fight with all the power of their position..

You see in the details of the accusation that they played bouncie bouncie on some date in mid August, the women were gossiping or bragging and were surprised to hear they they both had boffed him and both mentioned he hadn't used a condom, only then did they decide to talk to the Polis..and then same day a warrant was issued AND the Stockholm evening tabloid Expressen splashed headlines of the accusations--same day---.
Then when it was "kicked upstairs" another prosecutor review the protocol and decided there were no grounds for charges and the warrant was cancelled. THEN somebody squawked and a yet different prosecutor decided (to make political hay peut'etre)
This is not how a sane legal system works

I'm sure Assange knows this, he has had very good legal advice paid for by his supporters. This is why I'm afraid I simply don't buy the reasons he has given for fighting extradition to Sweden.

Now Janvanpurna's portrayal of Swedish society and their attitudes towards rape is something I agree with and its quite probable that Assange used his fame to get his end away without realising the consequences. The fact is though that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it and he should face his prosecutors in a court of law.

I imagine he has been advised that extradition from Sweden can be done at the merest whim of any low level bureaucrat on unknowable grounds however flimsy or legally weak, where in England there must be some sort of established procedure, and reasonable grounds of a serious felony having been committed...or so they say...

So i do not agree that he should face his prosecutors in a court IN SWEDEN as their legal system is a farce..

I have actually had dealings with the system, and at the advice of a good cop Gunnar Holm, studied the book on Swedish law and comparative law they he suggested (I was the victim of serious theft (my race motorcycle--the entire reason for living there---and the Police did nothing, so I tracked down the gang, gathered evidence, phone numbers, work numbers, confessions etc and then I was run in to the District Police HQ and I was grilled and when I directly asked why I was hauled in the Detective Superintendent said "I think you're trying to make us look bad" so i answer.."Oh I would never, you're doing far too good a job at that yourselves" and later dealt with JO using internal Police documents supplied to me by Holm showing the gross incompetence and clear shirking of responsibilities of the Police patrol that actually laid hands on the stolen bike and decided to ignore the pleadings of the 2 guys that had caught the thieves to secure the bike. The "Incident report read "called to scene at 21.20. probably stolen motorcycle. No blocking traffic. No action taken" Holm was appalled, and became advisor/protector.. official channels denied they had ever seen or been called---even after presenting them with copies on official forms of the incident report...And they followed me...seriously no conspiracy BS, you know in a very small town the unmarked Volvo 245s with 2 burly guys sitting for long time isn't normal so I'd walk over say Hi! and even asked once if they wanted coffee.
JO was a JO-ke. And all I wanted was an equivalent KTM 250

The system is insane...if there is ever justice in Sweden it is mere coincident.