London Police threatens to storm Ecuador's Embassy

[BleAivano]

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

WikiLeaks founder have taken his refugee inside the Ecuador embassy since
he have requested asylum in Ecuador. It is believed that he will be granted one
and a statement will be made today at 13.00 UK time.

Julian Assange have been wanted by the Swedish prosecution since about two years
since he is (falsely) suspected for a rape.

He is not convicted and he is not prosecuted and the Swedish prosecution have
refused to question Assange during all this time.

A short summary:

JA comes to Sweden meets two women
Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén.

JA is invited to Sofia's apartment and they agree to have sex during the night.
The morning after Sofia went out to buy breakfast for them and then served JA breakfast on the bed.

A little while later JA was accused of rape. The case was first closed but later re-opened by another
prosecutor. JA then went to the police and was questioned once.

The only evidence is an unused condom that that SW claims that JA used that night.

Then the prosecutor didn't question him any further.
JA then wanted to leave the country and asked if they needed to question him any further.
The answer was no and JA left the country. However as soon as he left the country
he was put up on Interpol's list of wanted by the Swedish prosecutor.

JA later walked into a Police station in London and was arrested.

After several negotiations in British court the supreme court in the UK decided that he should
be handed over to Swedish prosecution. After this JA took refugee in the Ecuador embassy.

JA fears (rightly imo) that if he is transferred to Sweden
they will not bother to open a prosecution but instead hand him over to
the USA where he will be "prosecuted" in the same way as Bradley Manning.

Why go as a far as storming an Embassy to arrest someone who
isn't even prosecuted? Would they have done the same if the suspect would
have been an average Joe?

Reuters Live Stream
occupynewsnetwork on USTREAM: Julian assange Ecuador embassy.
Britain threatens embassy raid for Assange - SFGate
BBC News - Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
BBC News - Timeline: sexual allegations against Assange in Sweden
BBC News - Why Julian Assange turned to Ecuador for help
BBC News - Q&A: Julian Assange and asylum

[BleAivano]

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.

[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.

[Rollo]

(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

[Rollo]

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

[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.

[BleAivano]

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.

[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. :\

[janvanvurpa]

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.

[BleAivano]

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