Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said the letter from the UK to Ecuador stated: "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."
It went on: "We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna Convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."
Apparently the Swedes have completed their investigation and they now wish to put him on trial for two counts of rape, which makes this a case of ordinary crime rather than a political one which automatically excludes him from being a refugee. So he is simply in breach of his bail conditions.
Well, Terry, since Assange is not going to stroll out the door, and the embassy are not going to just let armed guards stroll in, and take him out, anything else can only be declared a raid.
People from both Anonymous, and the occupy movement are now headed to the embassy to protect it, and assange, and so, you can pretty much count on riot police cracking heads of "protestors" once again. Also, this is not "because the olympics is over", it has been going on all the time, during the olympics, tennis opens, and football leagues... many people are involved. The difference is, you've stopped WATCHING the olympics, and gone back to seeing what is happening in real life.
Patrick... You're right... We should do a Pontius Pilate job and, as far as the Embassy thing is concerned, wash our hands of it... Let them take Julian (and I hope for his sake he has plenty of money and access to it) back to their place and fleece him whilst the heat dies down. Then let the US and the Swedes do what they can diplomatically to sort out who gets the pieces of him that they are interested in. There is no mileage in getting heavy with upsetting any more countries than we have to.
Insisting on entering an Embassy (foreign territory) uninvited is trespass... What's that line from that 'German edition' of Fawlty Towers?... You started it!... No we did not! Yes you did... You invaded Poland!
We don't need any more bad blood... after all - we've just illustrated what good guys we are by spending a 'war budget' on the Olympics! That worked.... this 'invasion' wouldn't!
Typical silly season story, this, blown up out of all proportion to fill the pages of the tabloids now we've no longer got gold medal winners to crow about! Who says the British threatened to "storm" the embassy? The Ecuadorians, who might just have an axe to grind, and the Red Tops. What did the UK actually say? Something on the lines of: "by the way, chaps, you should be aware that we have a law that would allow us to enter your embassy legally and arrest this man if we want to, Just so you know, eh?" Just a bit of diplomatic pressure, not a threat to send in the SAS. They're daft but not that daft.
I await the slings and arrows with equanimity! :-D
David, I'm not sure he should have gone to sweeden to face "waterloo". The Swedes seem to only want him, so they can pass him along to the US. The whole affair with the gilrs being very fishy, with reports of them boasting "their sexual conquest of" him before going to the police, plus, neither having bad feeling towards him, and the second lady saying that the sex was consensual, but he refused to wear a condom.
Come on. Sweeden is a pawn in the bigger, US controlled game.
The only previous "invasion" of an embassy in the UK that I can recall is the Iranian embassy in, er.... 1980? 1979? Sometime around then anyway. And in that situation, it was to rescue hostages. To go in just to get Assange seems a bit heavy-handed and would set a precedent. How many British embassies abroad would be occupied?
My own feeling is that they have not played this right. If Julian had the cojones, he should have gone to Sweden to face the charges. Incidentally, this seems heavy-handed in itself because as I understand it, he has not been formally charged - merely he is wanted for questioning. How many others that are wanted for questioning are running round free I ask myself? But anyway, he should have gone to face the Swedish music (insert Abba joke of choice here) and then followed on from there. I mean, surely Ecuador has a Swedish embassy too!
Any American members of SFN care to comment? What do you think is the US position in this and do they really want Assange that badly that he would feel he has to take flight to a friendly embassy?
While I won't comment on Assange, either, I feel like who are the UK to arrest Assange. He is wanted by the US, no? Storming an embassy will have pretty major consequences, both real life, and over the internet. They can expect to see govt websites defaced, and/or shut down for a very long time, as well as on the street sympathisers storming British embassies round the globe.
Trevor, if it is not for wikileaks, and friends of wikileaks to decide what it in the public domain, who should decide it? Your Government and military?? It has been proven time, and time again that they LIE to you, and chip away at your freedoms. if you are happy to live like that, so be it, but it is unfair of you to deny the right to knowledge to those who seek it.
They still have not released even half the data they have, which can only make one think, they really want this guy so bad, they must be hiding quite a shitstorm.
Ah yes...the 'Ego'... I think Brian's hit the nail right on the head. All of this and the personal reaction to it depends on how big a hitter you are and whether you feel you may have done wrong in anyone's eyes; broken any laws... Who's been a naughty boy then? etc...
In its simplest form it's surely a little like being vocal about not wanting to carry an Identity Card. If you have nothing to hide... why not? "Helping the police with their enquiries? Ooh... sounds like they must be guilty! But, if your hands are clean, why not just come out and show everyone that that is the case... Especially a criminal case. If you feel you may be guilty then pop into a church and claim sanctuary... or better maybe, find an embassy from a far away country, walk in and ask for asylum. Well it's the kind of thing we all do every day...Mmmm.
Myself, I think that seeking asylum in a destination such as Ecuador would be something like house arrest or imprisonment anyway... But then if money really does talk then maybe Julian's future life there could be construed as luxury... but without the freedom to come and go?
Of course, occasionally there are pending extradition cases where the majority of us from the news consumption brigade would support what appears to be - well let's say a hapless hacker (for example)... Often, because we don't yet know the whole story or have not been unfortunate enough to experience similar circumstances or problems for ourselves... I'm thinking initially of Gary Mckinnon. His autism, whilst obviously a torture in almost every other sense of the word has meant that twiddling on his computer with 'Rainman' skills has found him 'virtually' standing in the heart of the Pentagon's chamber of secrets. I think the US government should give him a job... and do poacher turned gamekeeper job on him - Voila. And, in the end, probably a lot cheaper and more cost effective than a high profile court case!
Julian? Innocent of all charges? Come on out and prove it. And then...when justice has been seen to be done... you're walking free in the sunshine, outside the court? So sue the arse of them! And, whilst we're waiting... Can I take my laptop in? What's the food like? And...does the telly have Sky?
The more William Hague opens his mouth, the more of a fool he appears to be.
This Assange business just isn't worth creating a diplomatic disturbance for, and if he authorises it he'll go down in my book as the stupidest Foreign Secretary in history.
Here's my advice to Hague
1. Leave Assange at the Venezuelan Embassy and allow them to fly him out if they want to.
2.Tell the Swedes and the Americans it's out of our hands - they'll have to take up the matter with the Venezuelan government
3. Make no further comment. Keep mouth shut for the duration of this parliament, or until re-shuffled into a meaningless backwater ministry.
Trevor, I don't think anybody disagrees with what you are saying this comment, it would be better if we had some kind of ombudsman or similar to do that so that the public is informed. I somehow doubt that will ever happen and whilst there are people with a conscience or out to make some money inside to leak out to Wiki or anybody else it will happen anyway. Assange is a tiny pawn in a big game, but that doesn't stop him being used as a political pawn which is not morally right. Let Swedish justice have him but with assurances that they will not deport him and then it will all be done and dusted.
Sticking to my point, where I have a problem with wiki/ Assange/ et al, is I don't trust them to be the arbiter of what should and should not be in the public domain. Yes Brian, Carol, I understand the points you make but I am trying to make another. Discretion.
Trevor, Assange hasn't been especially active himself for some time. Electronic media more or less hides the people who are running Wikleaks now, so he is simply a bit part player. Anyway, it is not as if he did the whole thing to begin with, he was simply the ego who went up front and into the public eye.
Knowing nought about Ecuador I looked it up in Wiki! I found that the government, which is very fragile, has suspended all civil liberties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is Assange serious? Why not let him go and live there- and keep him there.
Agreed. However, simply because we are in modern times old issues (national security, international allegiances) are no less important. Sticking to my point though, Assange sets a very poor precedent in my book, with the bar set so low what can we expect from others in the future.
Well put Carol. Let's be clear about one thing though, Wikileaks has exposed 'defence leaks' some of which need to be outed. Some of the things were a threat to national security but not only to the USA. However, Wikileaks did it and if they were not around other hackers and leaks probably would have. However, not everything they have exposed has been on national security issues, what about banking malpractice and other issues? Given it is our money banks are playing with, paying disproportionate bonuses with, plus their own vast profits do we mind those things being leaked? I certainly applaud them for bringing such things to public attention and only people who have dodgy financial dealings themselves might find them a bad thing. Anyway, the real issue is diplomatic immunity and the knock on effect. If it happens, the day a UK embassy somewhere is raided there will be outcry as if only that counts and if any diplomats are injured or killed, not worth thinking about... As Carol says, Assange cannot stay there forever, so sooner or later he will be taken anyway, so why cause diplomatic chaos?