Ecuador says WikiLeaks founder Assange is seeking asylum

[Josephus]

I'd imagine they could get him from the embassy to the car and then to the airport though?

What about at the airport though? Can't they arrest him before he boards?

[Barrister]

What is Ecuador getting in exchange from Assange? Money?

Their President (name escapes me) is a leftist blowhard in the same vein as Chavez and Morales.  He gets to stick it to the Man by taking in Assange.

[Sheilbh]

But Mongers a government acting according to its laws, and with an independent judiciary to hear any appeal (from my understanding there could be a very strong challenge on 'misuse') is almost the opposite of arbitrary.

If they announced it tomorrow and stormed in I'd agree, but that's not the position.

[mongers]

But Mongers a government acting according to its laws, and with an independent judiciary to hear any appeal (from my understanding there could be a very strong challenge on 'misuse') is almost the opposite of arbitrary.

If they announced it tomorrow and stormed in I'd agree, but that's not the position.

That doesn't really address the Ambassador's and the lawyer's points about the difficulty it might cause to future diplomatic conduct.

But I notice picking and trying to move the debate to be around one word and what it means; clearly your lawyer training is going well. 

[Razgovory]

I wonder if the Swedes would have found guilty of anything in the first place.

[dps]

Can't he just jump out of a window onto the car or something.  I wouldn't keep him in the embassy to long, the guy does have a habit of publishing diplomatic cables.

OTOH, how many state secrets can Ecuador have?

[dps]

I wonder if the Swedes would have found guilty of anything in the first place.

If found guilty in Sweden, he would have probably served less time in Swedish prison than he's already spent in the Ecuadorian embassy.

[Sheilbh]

That doesn't really address the Ambassador's and the lawyer's points about the difficulty it might cause to future diplomatic conduct.

But I notice picking and trying to move the debate to be around one word and what it means; clearly your lawyer training is going well. 

I think the difference between arbitrarily revoking embassy status or not is key.  If the issue is that the government has this power at all then that's a problem with the 1987 law, but I don't think that's it.

Apparently Assange is now going to try and appeal to the ICJ.  Which is impossible because he's not a country

[Sheilbh]

I wonder if the Swedes would have found guilty of anything in the first place.

The Swedes haven't even charged him yet.  My understanding is that under Swedish law he can't be charged until he's questioned, which is what this is all about.

[Barrister]

Can't he just jump out of a window onto the car or something.  I wouldn't keep him in the embassy to long, the guy does have a habit of publishing diplomatic cables.

OTOH, how many state secrets can Ecuador have?

Didn't the Colombian government discover documents that indicated Ecuador had been supplying the FARC?

*quick google*



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13436104

[Barrister]

That doesn't really address the Ambassador's and the lawyer's points about the difficulty it might cause to future diplomatic conduct.

But I notice picking and trying to move the debate to be around one word and what it means; clearly your lawyer training is going well. 

I think the difference between arbitrarily revoking embassy status or not is key.  If the issue is that the government has this power at all then that's a problem with the 1987 law, but I don't think that's it.

Apparently Assange is now going to try and appeal to the ICJ.  Which is impossible because he's not a country

and it's not an appeal court. 

[mongers]

That doesn't really address the Ambassador's and the lawyer's points about the difficulty it might cause to future diplomatic conduct.

But I notice picking and trying to move the debate to be around one word and what it means; clearly your lawyer training is going well. 

I think the difference between arbitrarily revoking embassy status or not is key.  If the issue is that the government has this power at all then that's a problem with the 1987 law, but I don't think that's it.

Apparently Assange is now going to try and appeal to the ICJ.  Which is impossible because he's not a country

No I think the issue is that a government believes it can question and threaten the tradition of sovereign immunity of diplomatic territory, that opens up a whole can of worms as to how states conduct themselves with regard to foreign diplomats.

It doesn't mater what your perception of arbitrary is in this case, what might happen in future if states believe that can disregard diplomatic territory when it suits their own narrow national interests or want to play to domestic political concerns.

My understanding of the original legislation, which appears not to have ever been used, was that it was specifically targeted at instances were diplomatic territory was used to launch/organise terrorist attack or acts of war. 

Why am I not surprised that the rather ham-fisted Tories decide to try and apply it, or at least use it as a threat in a far more mundane diplomatic dispute. After all there's a long tradition of people seeking sanctuary in embassies, the vast majority of which appear to resolve themselves peacefully.

Remember the invasion of Panama, and how the apparently heavy-handed* Americans dealt with the problem of Noreiga in the Vatican embassy ? 

Even in that situation they didn't threaten to kick the door down and drag him out kicking and screaming at the point of a rifle, no they just played the waiting game, applied as much diplomatic pressure as they could and chucked a PAs worth or crap-rock music at the embassy building.  And it eventually worked. 




* I say that as that was the public perception in much of the world, they'd after all invaded the place.

[jimmy olsen]

The British government mentioned this fact and said that under our law we can revoke embassy status if its being misused - but this would have to be litigated - and that in their view using it to hide a normal fugitive (ie. not a political refugee, unless rape counts) counts as misuse and they're willing to argue that.  If they're successful the police can then enter the building.


The Ecuadorian foreign minister announced that the British government was threatening Ecuador and would militarily raid their embassy.  This was picked up on twitter and in news channels without much research or knowledge

It would be a horrific precedent. What would stop China or any other dictatorship from doing that to get a dissident that sought shelter in an American or European embassy? They don't discriminate between normal and political crimes, and even if they did they could just whip up a bogus rape/assault charge and go in and get him.

[Josephus]

I wonder if the Swedes would have found guilty of anything in the first place.

If found guilty in Sweden, he would have probably served less time in Swedish prison than he's already spent in the Ecuadorian embassy.

I don't think he has an issue with surrendering to the Swedes to be investigated to see if there is anything he can be charged with. He just wants a guarantee that the Swedes won't turn around and extradite him to the States where he faces stiffer charges.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think he has an issue with surrendering to the Swedes to be investigated to see if there is anything he can be charged with. He just wants a guarantee that the Swedes won't turn around and extradite him to the States where he faces stiffer charges.

Why would that be true in Sweden but not the UK?