Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scelly9]

So they want to get him arrested because he's getting all of the ladies and they wanted him to go take a test for STIs?

No, they want him arrested because he make trouble by releasing documents.

[Graknorke]

So they want to get him arrested because he's getting all of the ladies and they wanted him to go take a test for STIs?

No, they want him arrested because he make trouble by releasing documents.

Yes I know, I meant that the excuse must seem pretty flimsy to anyone who thinks at all. Surely there's quite a few people who can see that this would be ridiculous escalation in normal circumstances.

Also I think the reason the US would rather wait to extradite him from Sweden is because if they extradited another famous person everyone would probably flip their shit at the government here in the UK, but (they were hoping) most news outlets would just sensationalise the rape story and mention him being sent to Sweden with no implications.

[Nadaka]

Is there anywhere I can get a source for Britain actually storming the Ecuadorian embassy, violating their sovereignty and possibly committing an act of war to get Assange, rather than just threatening to do so?

edit: a quick search only shows up this: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/

[Leafsnail]

I think there are no sources for it because it hasn't actually happened.

[alway]

Some pretty funny stuff in this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18521881

So in practical terms could he get out?

Assuming Julian Assange evaded arrest outside the embassy, he could get into a diplomatic car. These vehicles enjoy protection in international law from "search, requisition, attachment and execution".

That could lead to the curious legal position of the Met having the power to stop the car - but no power to search it for Julian Assange.

Could he be taken out of the embassy in a container?

There are strict rules relating to "diplomatic bags" which are designed to allow countries to bring their documents in and out of a host nation. Diplomatic bags can be any size that the country wants them to be and they cannot be opened or detained in transit.

But the law says they are for official materials, so it is difficult to see how Julian Assange could be put in a crate and shipped out - not least because the British authorities would have a fairly clear idea what was in the box.

However he gets out, it will probably involve Yakety Sax playing in the background.

[palsch]

However he gets out, it will probably involve Yakety Sax playing in the background.

Relevant.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As I recall, the "put the asylum seeker in a diplomatic box" trick was actually done once before.

[palsch]

As I recall, the "put the asylum seeker in a diplomatic box" trick was actually done once before.

There was the Dikko affair which was a kidnapping using a diplomatic crate. Unfortunately for the kidnappers it didn't have the right paperwork filed so it was reduced to a crate with the words Diplomatic Baggage stamped on it.

I found that one today via Charon QC, one of the more irreverent English law bloggers who also happened to teach Mr Dikko in later life. He has a fun story about it there.

[Leafsnail]

So the car thing could work if he somehow made it to the car?  Or they somehow transported the car into the flat?

[palsch]

So the car thing could work if he somehow made it to the car?  Or they somehow transported the car into the flat?

The car would have diplomatic privilege, but that's fairly limited. If he could get from a second floor flat to the car the British police couldn't remove him from the car. They could, however, stop that car from going anywhere. They can't enter it but they don't have to give it free passage.

In addition he would eventually have to leave the car to get on a plain. Even if they brought a plane that had similar privilege the British don't have to let it leave and could arrest him on the way to that as well.

So basically he has asylum which means he can stay in that flat for as long as he care to. There is no practical way he could get out of the country and realistically he is going to be arrested as soon as he leaves the flat.

The likely scenario now is he eventually leaves the flat (or the flat's diplomatic status is revoked after a protracted legal battle), gets arrested and detained, gets extradited to Sweden, is charged and tried, either jailed or cleared (more likely jailed given the charges and past statements), then eventually re-extradited to the UK to be charged over skipping bail (maximum of 12 months jail).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I certainly hope the UK doesn't revoke the embassy's status. The last thing we need is another war between the UK and a South American nation over an ultimately very small thing.

[palsch]

I certainly hope the UK doesn't revoke the embassy's status. The last thing we need is another war between the UK and a South American nation over an ultimately very small thing.

That kind of thing doesn't lead to war. Expelling diplomats and closing embassies is a fairly standard tool of statecraft and diplomacy. Admittedly usually on a smaller scale than closing an embassy (take Britain expelling an Israeli diplomat over an assassination in Dubai, seen as a minor reaction and slap on the wrist), but the best possible path would probably be in Ecuador's interest.

Say the UK breaks diplomatic relations as described here (the recommendation at the end). Both nations withdraw all diplomats and forfeit embassies (I believe the UK only has a consulate there, but may be wrong). Assange is taken into custody. At this point the UK approaches Ecuador to re-open diplomatic relations. From a position of weakness given what they have just done. Ecuador can negotiate a new relationship from a position of power.

To be frank I can't see a reason Ecuador would want to hang onto Assange. They stand to gain an advantage from him, but that doesn't come from him going free. It comes from him being handed over in a manner that they are put in power over the UK. And the UK is probably best to accept that.

[Zangi]

Make huge precedence, local laws to revoke embassy location and relocate it elsewhere or whatever arbitrary reason...  Arrest asylum seekers right then and there. 

I forsee some others taking quite a liking to the idea...

EDIT: I'd love to see the argument... 
UK/US: "But Assange was a special case, we were pursuing justice."
Some other Country: "So are we, X asylum seeker has broken our laws and we are pursuing justice, the same as you."

[palsch]

Make huge precedence, local laws to revoke embassy location and relocate it elsewhere or whatever arbitrary reason...  Arrest asylum seekers right then and there. 

I forsee some others taking quite a liking to the idea...

Which is why the preferred UK strategy might be to take Ecuador to court (using the law cited in their 'threat' letter), demonstrating definitively than sheltering Assange is not legal under international law, then shutting down the embassy. It would be much more expensive for both sides, incredibly long winded and no-one is entirely sure how it works (even what court has jurisdiction is a slightly fuzzy question).

Honestly there is no good path for anyone from here. It's an ugly diplomatic situation that can't really end well unless Assange hands himself over.

[sneakey pete]

It's an ugly diplomatic situation that can't really end well unless Assange hands himself over.

Or if he's somehow spirited out of the country.