Assange - foreign office threaten to arrest him

[Empusa]

Article here

They are talking about revoking the Ecuadorian embassy's diplomatic immunity in order to enter the embassy.

Wonder if they will actually do so?

[Kladdkaka]

... and they distract us from otherwise more useful pursuits.

[SarahBumBarer]

The UK/US treaty specifically excludes political offences too...my first "glance" at the two treaties suggests that they are not that dissimilar...

[Kladdkaka]

I think the difference is the clause in the UK treaty about when a political offence is not a political offence. It is not a political offence when it is:

'an offense for which both Parties have the obligation pursuant to a
multilateral international agreement to extradite the person sought
or to submit the case to their competent authorities for decision as
to prosecution'

That's a little bit woolly and open to interpretation. I guess the US could argue that the UK is obligued persuant to its international agreements to fight the war on terror, or something like that. If they were so inclined.

But it's all a smoke screen anyway.

[NameGames]

Sarah Helena Kennedy was definitely on his legal team last year, I heard an interview with her where she said she had taken on the case because she had concerns about the EAW in general and that this case raised those points. IIRC she thought the change to accepting another jurisdiction's declaration that there was sufficient evidence needed testing at the Supreme Court, previously the UK would only extradite after our court considered the evidence the other country had to prosecute.

I have recently seen American news articles that talk about her being an ex-member of the team. It wouldn't be surprising if if her arrangement ceased once the Court delivered it's judgement.

[EldritchCleavage]

Helena Kennedy was with his legal team at the initial extradition hearing though she did not speak.

I've posted this before,. but it has now been updated: interesting blog explaining the law including that of asylum:
http://ffgqc.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/julian-the-asylum-seeker/ here

[Kladdkaka]

That's a really interesting blog Eldritch

[EldritchCleavage]

Isn't it? Especially the information that Assange did not put any suggestion of a US plot to get hold of him before the court.

[mignonette]

The 1987 act was brought in as an absolute response to Yvonne Fletcher's murder.

[Kladdkaka]

I wonder where we go from here?

[AGiraffeOnTheDivingBoard]

Klad Thank you. Feel like printing out this thread and revising so I can quote!

I'm getting really fed up of hearing conspiracy theories about the CIA getting these women to make up rape claims. I just don't buy it. It's them I feel for and not JA.

Whilst I don't support getting him from any embassy by force he should be extradited at the very first opportunity to face these charges in Sweden. It has nothing to do with the UK. He's wanted in Sweden. If a man was wanted for rape charges in the UK we'd hope Sweden would do the same. If the US then want him from Sweden then that's up to Sweden. Ecuador are using this situation. This is a country that locks up its journalists when it doesn't like what they write (source: David Aaronovitch on Ch 4 news). They just want to stick two fingers up at the US.

His wikileaks always struck me as an ego trip and he's always given me the creeps (see how I needed this thread to help me in debates)

The one "celebrity" I found quite interesting was David Bailey who was asked to photograph him for a series in the Sunday Times : "I met that WikiLeaks bloke the other day. I couldn't do a portrait of him - there's nothing in his eyes," case closed

[TheDoctrineOfEnnis]

I don't think he will be extracted from the Embassy by force - if the UK revoke the diplomatic immunity on this point, I think it would be very unlikely there would be any kind of battle. Ultimately the embassy must abide by the law of the host nation.

UK diplomats in Ecuador might find themselves subject to some hassle though - possibly of the being questioned at 3am for a parking ticket kind. Uk may reduce diplomatic presence in Ecuador before rescinding anything here.

[MooncupGoddess]

Ecuador are playing rather a high-stakes game here, aren't they? They're pissing off the US, the UK and Sweden, just to stick two fingers up and get their 15 minutes of fame.... doesn't seem like a great bargain to me.

[TheDoctrineOfEnnis]

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to me. I do wonder if the uk blundered by reminding them we could rescind privelige when they hadnt yet made the asylum decision...

[niceguy2]

I think the 'reminder' was a total blunder at any stage.

The moment we rescind the diplomatic status of an embassy we put at risk UK staff at our embassies worldwide.

Why should we expect other countries to respect diplomatic conventions when we suspend it when it suits us?

I can see why we introduced the law but to use it in this situation would seriously do more harm than good.


The only solutions I can see to this are if Sweden can somehow make some sort of commitment that Assange won't be passed onto the US. Or that Ecuador can smuggle him out in some ingenious way in a few months when we've tired of spending £50k a day on police guarding the building and the UK govt decide the easiest thing to do is to turn a blind eye and let someone else deal with the mess.

[Empusa]

"The only solutions I can see to this are if Sweden can somehow make some sort of commitment that Assange won't be passed onto the US."

But why should they?

The US hasn't tried to extradite him, and if they did and it was felt that it would result in his death or loss of his human rights, then it is already enshrined in law that they couldn't agree to it. If that was his genuine reason for not going to Sweden then I'm sure someone would already have pointed this out to him.

But then it's blatantly not about that is it.

[TheDoctrineOfEnnis]

Niceguy, we wouldn't compleyely rescind their diplomatic status. The position is that diplomatic immunity doesn't apply to accusations of this nature (where it might apply to injury against a state rather than injury against a person).
I dont think the UK is unique in having such a carve out, but to quote a PP, there would definitely be a diplomatic storm.

[TheDoctrineOfEnnis]

So if an Ecuadorian diplomat committed GBH, say, I think we could pursue him without the whole Embassy's status being suspended. Whether we would or not, I dont know.

[Kladdkaka]

Send all the ecuadorian diplomats and staff home for aiding and abetting a fugitive from the law, as is perfectly acceptable to do under the Vienna Convention. Turn off the electric and the water. Sit outside and wait for him to surrender. Simples.

[EdithWeston]

The purpose of diplomatic immunity is to let diplomats carry out their functions, even when in countries with hostile regimes.

It is not intended to be a carte blanche for all sorts of unrelated criminality. If a diplomat is suspected of an offense, then the host Government can ask the represented Government to waive that individual's immunity, and normal prosecution follows (or the parking ticket is paid, or whatever). If they decline, then the host Government can declare the diplomat persona non grata and expel them (happens a lot in espionage related matters).

Removing the status from the Embassy building is different, and permits eg the police to go in to make a search, or in this case to make an arrest for which there is an outstanding warrant.

[TheDoctrineOfEnnis]

Thanks, Edith, that is helpful.

[NovackNGood]

Don't need to turn of the electricity. The government can expel them any day they want.

[BlackOutTheSun]

Is anyone else wondering why trick he is going to pull tomorrow. The news are saying that he is making a statement outside the embassy at 2pm

[TheDoctrineOfEnnis]

Some kind of conference is now planned between Ecuador and other Northern and Siuthern American coUntries, maybe he will talk about that?

[BlackOutTheSun]

But if he steps outside then he is nicked

[edam]

Yes, he knows that, therefore he must be pulling some kind of stunt.