Hmm, Rafael Correa is buddies with Chavez. They might say yes.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/19/world/europe/ecuador-assange-asylum/index.html
QuoteLondon (CNN) -- WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and has requested political asylum, officials and WikiLeaks said Tuesday.
Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino read a statement to reporters at a news conference in Quito. He took no questions.
Assange has been fighting for a year and a half against being sent to Sweden for questioning about accusations of sexual abuse. Two women accused him in August 2010 of sexually assaulting them during a visit to Sweden in connection with a WikiLeaks release of internal U.S. military documents.
"Julian Assange has requested political asylum and is under the protection of the Ecuadorian embassy in London," WikiLeaks wrote on its Twitter page.
The embassy also released a statement on its website saying Assange, an Australian, arrived there in the afternoon and will remain at the embassy while his application is assessed.
"The decision to consider Mr. Assange's application for protective asylum should in no way be interpreted as the government of Ecuador interfering in the judicial processes of either the United Kingdom or Sweden," the statement said.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom last week dismissed an application filed by an attorney for Assange seeking to reopen his appeal against extradition.
The application was Assange's last option in the British courts. Britain's Crown Prosecution Service has previously said if the court dismissed Assange's appeal, his only further remedy would be to apply immediately to the European Court of Human Rights, and Assange's attorneys have vowed to do so.
Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office acknowledged Assange's request for political asylum in a statement, and said it would work with Ecuadorian authorities to "resolve this situation as soon as possible."
Assange has not been charged with a crime, but Swedish prosecutors want to question him about allegations of "unlawful coercion and sexual misconduct including rape," according to a Supreme Court document.
He has been under house arrest in Britain since December 2010. Assange has maintained his innocence and claims the allegations against him are politically motivated. He fears that if he is extradited to Sweden, authorities there could hand him over to the United States, where he then could be prosecuted for his role in the leaking of classified documents.
WikiLeaks, which facilitates the anonymous leaking of secret information, has published some 250,000 confidential U.S. diplomatic cables, causing embarrassment to the government and others. It also has published hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. documents relating to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Recently, the organization has come under financial pressure, leading Assange to announce that WikiLeaks was temporarily stopping publication to "aggressively fund raise" in order to stay afloat.
An announcement at the top of WikiLeaks' home page reads: "We are forced to put all our efforts into raising funds to ensure our economic survival."
During his wait for the Supreme Court to rule on his extradition, Assange has hosted a talk show on Russian TV. "The World Tomorrow" appears on the Kremlin-funded, pro-Russian network Russia Today. He hosted it from the Suffolk, England, mansion where he is under house arrest with an electronic bracelet monitoring his movements.
He has interviewed controversial figures at odds with the U.S. government, including Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, which the United States considers a terrorist organization, and Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, who railed against the United States in his interview with Assange.
In 2010, a statement from Ecuador's foreign ministry appeared to offer the controversial Assange an invitation to discuss a trove of leaked documents. The ministry also offered to process a request for residency, if Assange chose.
But a later statement from the Ecuadorian Embassy in the United States said that was not the case.
"While there was some confusion in the media flowing out of Quito yesterday, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa has clarified that his country has not invited WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange to Ecuador," the statement read.
In Ecuador, Correa said at the time that his country had not made a formal invitation to Assange and that the ministry declaration, made by Deputy Foreign Minister Kintto Lucas, was "spontaneous" and personal in nature.
This guy will end up having an "accident" some point in the future.
sigh, I am reasonably sure that suing for asylum in Ecuador is a breach of his parole as it is in effect an attempt to escape.
It ain't China though...hiding in an embassy in the UK might just work.
Cant someone take him out with a dronestrike already? :glare:
You know, having him exiled to Ecuador, unable to travel the world due to an Interpol warrant, is perhaps the best possible outcome. :hmm:
Hah, what a loser.
Quote from: Barrister on June 20, 2012, 11:24:56 AM
You know, having him exiled to Ecuador, unable to travel the world due to an Interpol warrant, is perhaps the best possible outcome. :hmm:
they have computers and internet, I figure.
Quote from: Viking on June 19, 2012, 11:40:04 PM
sigh, I am reasonably sure that suing for asylum in Ecuador is a breach of his parole as it is in effect an attempt to escape.
You are correct (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/europe/twists-in-julian-assange-bid-for-asylum-in-ecuador.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Looks like they're going to grant it.
Interview with Ecuador's President (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eluniverso.com%2F2012%2F06%2F22%2F1%2F1355%2Frafael-correa-descarta-caso-julian-assange-tense-relaciones-quito-londres.html&act=url)
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 19, 2012, 11:40:54 PM
It ain't China though...hiding in an embassy in the UK might just work.
Or not.
Surprised Languish isn't discussing this.
Freedom for Assange!
I'm sure some of the staff at the Equatorian embassy would like to be.
Didn't Britain threaten military intervention? Maybe Ecuador should consider what happened the last time the British fought a South American country.
I'm sure the staff at the Ecuadorian embassy have been telling him. "Ok. Look. You're welcome to sit around here for a while BUT STAY AWAY FROM OUR COMPUTERS. oh, and our women too."
Quote from: Solmyr on August 16, 2012, 09:07:42 AM
Didn't Britain threaten military intervention? Maybe Ecuador should consider what happened the last time the British fought a South American country with a contiguous land mass
I'm pretty sure the UK could take the galapagos back if the equadorian army invaded and kicked the UK and US grad students measuring beak and seed size.
I doubt he'll stay. He's to much of an attention whore to lay low in the third world.
does anyone even care about wikileaks anymore?
No.
but the issue now has become one of whether or not the brits should be raiding the ecuadorian embassy.
Quote from: Josephus on August 16, 2012, 08:47:38 AM
Surprised Languish isn't discussing this.
Uhm, what do you think this thread is about?
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 11:33:37 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 16, 2012, 08:47:38 AM
Surprised Languish isn't discussing this.
Uhm, what do you think this thread is about?
Well most of this thread is from June or prior - J resurrected it.
I'm surprised that J thinks we care at all what goes down with Assange-Ecuador-Britain.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 16, 2012, 09:07:42 AM
Didn't Britain threaten military intervention? Maybe Ecuador should consider what happened the last time the British fought a South American country.
No. Twitter and the MSM have gone mental over this. The police are camping outside the embassy because we've a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden - the same international law he's taking advantage of staying in the embassy. The Ecuadorian embassy is on the first floor of its building. They can't get Assange from the embassy (protected) to the diplomatic car (protected) without coming down the stairs and crossing British soil - so he'd be arrested.
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.
Either way instead of being a small room in Sweden, while he's questioned, Assange will stay in a small room in Knightsbridge until he comes out (at which point he'll be arrested) or for the couple of years the 1987 act is argued in front of the courts.
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 :lol:
the really sad thing is that if he had just gone to sweden served his time he would have been out by now and he would have cost the british taxpayer a hell of a lot less money.
Can't they take him from the embassy to the car in a diplomatic pouch? :lmfao:
This is the same dilemna the US was in when that Chinese dissident sought refuge at their embassy in Beijing. Sure, he could take refuge there, but they had no means of getting him to the US.
Quote from: Josephus on August 16, 2012, 12:29:06 PM
Can't they take him from the embassy to the car in a diplomatic pouch? :lmfao:
No - that sort of thing's been tried. Apparently in the 80s the Nigerians tried to ship a fugitive minister from their London embassy in a crate. He was caught :lol:
One thing the Ecuadorians are allegedly considering is making Assange a diplomat. Trouble is Britain wouldn't give him accreditation so they may try to appoint him as a deputy attache for sexual violence and human rights to the UN.
QuoteThis is the same dilemna the US was in when that Chinese dissident sought refuge at their embassy in Beijing. Sure, he could take refuge there, but they had no means of getting him to the US.
I'd imagine they could get him from the embassy to the car and then to the airport though?
What is Ecuador getting in exchange from Assange? Money?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 12:23:23 PM
.......
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 :lol:
I don't know there appear to be clearer head who are rather concerned about this move.
Putting aside the whole Assange circus, I think this is now the more important issue:
Quote
FCO 'risks breaching international law' over Assange embassy crisis
The Foreign Office risks breaching international law if it carries out its threat to revoke the status of the Ecuadorean Embassy in order to arrest Julian Assange, a former ambassador to Moscow has warned.
Police patrol outside the Ecuador Embassy in London. Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has walked into the Ecuadorian Embassy, seeking political asylum. Photo: Tim Hales/Ap
By Rosa Prince, Online Political Editor
9:48AM BST 16 Aug 2012
Sir Tony Brenton, who served as the United Kingdom's ambassador to Russia between 2004 and 2008, said "arbitrarily" overturning the status of the building where Mr Assange has taken shelter to avoid extradition, would make life 'impossible' for British diplomats overseas.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: "I think the Foreign Office have slightly overreached themselves here, for both practical and legal reasons.
"The Government itself has no interest in creating a situation where it is possible for governments everywhere to arbitrarily cut off diplomatic immunity. It would be very bad."
Sir Tony said he considered it "highly unlikely" that the Foreign Office would carry out the threat, which was made directly to the Ecuadoran government by British diplomats in Quito.
He warned that if it did, life would become "impossible" for those working in British embassies around the world, adding: "If the Russians had had the power and simply walked into the embassy and simply arrested someone, we would have been in much more insecurity."
......
Rest of article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9479250/FCO-risks-breaching-international-law-over-Assange-embassy-crisis.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9479250/FCO-risks-breaching-international-law-over-Assange-embassy-crisis.html)
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 12:33:24 PM
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?
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 12:36:27 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 01:08:38 PM
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. ;)
I wonder if the Swedes would have found guilty of anything in the first place.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 12:41:27 PM
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 03:32:02 PM
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.
Quote from: mongers on August 16, 2012, 01:23:05 PM
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 :blink:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 03:32:02 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 03:35:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 12:41:27 PM
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*
:smarty:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13436104
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 03:37:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 16, 2012, 01:23:05 PM
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 :blink:
and it's not an appeal court. :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 03:37:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 16, 2012, 01:23:05 PM
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 :blink:
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 12:23:23 PM
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 :lol:
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.
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 03:36:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 03:32:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Josephus on August 16, 2012, 06:49:56 PM
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?
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2012, 03:39:54 PM
Didn't the Colombian government discover documents that indicated Ecuador had been supplying the FARC?
*quick google*
:smarty:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13436104
Hell I could have told them that
The problem is that once it's been done at all, evil races like the Russians and the Chinese will go at it willy-nilly, and there won't be any judicial proceedings. Even if the Government has the legal right to do so, they should restrain themselves and just blast the building with AC/DC.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2012, 06:04:02 PM
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?
:huh: The same thing that stops them now: the fact that it would cost them diplomatic relations with the nation whose embassy was invaded, plus any other countries that would decide to sever diplomatic relations in protest. It isn't like the Chinese or other dictatorships are deterred right now by a fear of getting arrested if they invade embassies.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2012, 09:52:28 PM
The problem is that once it's been done at all, evil races like the Russians and the Chinese will go at it willy-nilly, and there won't be any judicial proceedings. Even if the Government has the legal right to do so, they should restrain themselves and just blast the building with AC/DC.
Embassies have been invaded in the past, so its already been done. Again, the thug states aren't stopped by a lack of precedent, but rather by fear of the consequences of their actions. What Britain does has no bearing on that.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/08/17/julian_assange_asylum_offer_by_ecuador_president_correa_criticized_by_international_community_on_freedom_of_the_press_.html
slate argues that assange got asylum in ecuador because the UK, US and Reporters without borders have been busy criticizing him for restricting the freedom of the press. The best way to avoid looking dirty is to sling so much muck that everybody is covered in it. That and Ecuador is quickly becoming a Chinese colony.
All those stories of Assange getting pizza deliveries made me think :hmm: Would it violate any international law to slip in a little poison in one of those pizzas? :ph34r: Not enough to kill him, but just enough to necessitate a visit to the hospital, and from there to the American death row? :ph34r:
It's much better for him to be a fugitive from justice. His credibility is shot.
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2012, 08:18:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2012, 09:52:28 PM
The problem is that once it's been done at all, evil races like the Russians and the Chinese will go at it willy-nilly, and there won't be any judicial proceedings. Even if the Government has the legal right to do so, they should restrain themselves and just blast the building with AC/DC.
Embassies have been invaded in the past, so its already been done. Again, the thug states aren't stopped by a lack of precedent, but rather by fear of the consequences of their actions. What Britain does has no bearing on that.
Yeah it seemed like people were conveniently forgetting what has already happened in the past.
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2012, 10:06:06 PM
All those stories of Assange getting pizza deliveries made me think :hmm: Would it violate any international law to slip in a little poison in one of those pizzas? :ph34r: Not enough to kill him, but just enough to necessitate a visit to the hospital, and from there to the American death row? :ph34r:
I'm sure they can find a doctor who does house calls.