We'll Huff and Puff and Blow Your House Down!! - Assange update

[koan]

He's hiding out in the Ecuador Embassy but the UK authorities are threatening to revoke diplomatic rights of the embassy and storm the keep.

Exciting times.

[Bruv]

Why Ecuador ?

[flopstock]

Bruv;1400869 wrote: Why Ecuador ?


last place anyone thought to look apparently.

[LarsMac]

BBC News - Julian Assange: Ecuador grants Wikileaks founder asylum



Why Julian Assange turned to Ecuador for help

[Oscar Namechange]

The British Government seems to be seeking revoking any of the diplomatic agreements with Ecuador simply to give British police the right to storm the building and arrest Assange.

Seems a pretty dirty practice to me that could have serious ramifications with other Embassy's.

[gmc]

Assange is an idiot, assuming he's innocent of the charges and he goes to sweden - or even if subsequently found guilty - and if he then finds himself being extradited to the US that's when he should be asking for political asylum. There would be demonstrations on the streets if the swedes tried to send him to the US I can't see the swedes letting their government away with it and I dare say the eueopen court if human rights would want to get involved as it would be a clearly political move that would show up the US as a bunch of hypocrites or maybe they wouldn't extradite him.

[Snowfire]

I think the idea that an embassy is part of a countries exclusive territory is a bit of a myth. The US Embassy, for example is not American, it belongs to the UK. Doesnt the term "embassy" refer to the diplomatic team, rather than the building itself ? The rights of the occupants are given the freedom, for diplomatic purposes, something that all sovereign nations offer and make good use of but I think it could be challenged in a court as to whether the embassy could rightfully entered by the "owner" of the land/building, ie the host nation. Surely an embassy is just a representation of a Nation, in this case Equador

Or, I could be talking utter drivel. It wouldnt be the first time.

[chonsigirl]

Make sure that drivel is in Spanish, I hope Assange knows it since he will be speaking it for awhile...................................

[LarsMac]

Snowfire;1400922 wrote: I think the idea that an embassy is part of a countries exclusive territory is a bit of a myth. The US Embassy, for example is not American, it belongs to the UK. Doesnt the term "embassy" refer to the diplomatic team, rather than the building itself ? The rights of the occupants are given the freedom, for diplomatic purposes, something that all sovereign nations offer and make good use of but I think it could be challenged in a court as to whether the embassy could rightfully entered by the "owner" of the land/building, ie the host nation. Surely an embassy is just a representation of a Nation, in this case Equador

Or, I could be talking utter drivel. It wouldnt be the first time.


The Embassy grounds are considered the sovereign soil of the nation that owns the embassy. The host nation, or any other is legally bound to abide by the laws of that nation while on embassy grounds.

If the UK were to follow through with such an act, they might find that their own embassies in other nations will no longer be respected.

Of course all of this is driven by the US desire to get their hands on the fellow.

Pay attention.

someday you can tell your great grandchildren about the day you witnessed the fall of human civil rights.

[Saint_]

gmc;1400920 wrote: Assange is an idiot, assuming he's innocent of the charges and he goes to sweden - or even if subsequently found guilty - and if he then finds himself being extradited to the US that's when he should be asking for political asylum. There would be demonstrations on the streets if the swedes tried to send him to the US I can't see the swedes letting their government away with it and I dare say the eueopen court if human rights would want to get involved as it would be a clearly political move that would show up the US as a bunch of hypocrites or maybe they wouldn't extradite him.


Pfft. As if we care what European courts think of us. We're the sole remaining hyperpower on the planet. We get what we want.

You guys better extradite him to Sweden soon, so we can nab him and try him for espionage (after a little waterboarding of course!)...

Or we'll have to send a C.I.A hit team over there and solve the problem for you.

[Oscar Namechange]

LarsMac;1400931 wrote:

Pay attention.

someday you can tell your great grandchildren about the day you witnessed the fall of human civil rights.


How true.

[koan]

That's utter insanity! That the UK would breach such international regulations just to get a guy that isn't even charged with a crime yet!! And Sweden still refuses to come interview him in the Ecuador embassy to avoid the crisis. It's bloody obvious there is more to this than Sweden wanting to ask him questions. The extradition without charges was bizarre in the first place. It seems there is more commitment to getting Assange than there was to get Bin Laden.

There's no way this is just about Sweden. Unless Sweden got a lot more internationally intimidating since... ever.

[Snowfire]

from wikipdea : Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state



I wasnt entirely drivelly, although its not as straightforward as I thought as "extraterritorial status" concerns "local law". Statute law ? common law ? natural law ? I'm sure given the British Governments insistance (rightly or wrongly) that there are lawful ways of entering the the embassy, there must be those who know the "law" who think differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission

[LarsMac]

It seems the US has tagged him with "Terrorist" status.

[Oscar Namechange]

Snowfire;1400943 wrote: from wikipdea : Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state



I wasnt entirely drivelly, although its not as straightforward as I thought as "extraterritorial status" concerns "local law". Statute law ? common law ? natural law ? I'm sure given the British Governments insistance (rightly or wrongly) that there are lawful ways of entering the the embassy, there must be those who know the "law" who think differently.

Diplomatic mission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Did you know out of Interest, that the UK has never had anyone extradited from the USA to answer crimes here?

[Bruv]

Saint_;1400932 wrote: Pfft. As if we care what European courts think of us. We're the sole remaining hyperpower on the planet. We get what we want.

You guys better extradite him to Sweden soon, so we can nab him and try him for espionage (after a little waterboarding of course!)...

Or we'll have to send a C.I.A hit team over there and solve the problem for you.


Now this could be serious or it could be humorous..................I didn't think American's did irony.

[Snowfire]

oscar;1400947 wrote: Did you know out of Interest, that the UK has never had anyone extradited from the USA to answer crimes here?


I know that very well. Not one IRA terrorist was extradited to the UK but Gary McKinnon a computer hacker with asbergers syndrome is fighting extradition to the US

[Oscar Namechange]

Snowfire;1400949 wrote: I know that very well. Not one IRA terrorist was extradited to the UK but Gary McKinnon a computer hacker with asbergers syndrome is fighting extradition to the US Along with others we don't get to see In the media.....

Just been announced on the news..... Assange has been granted political asylum by Ecuador on British soil... HA

[LarsMac]

oscar;1400947 wrote: Did you know out of Interest, that the UK has never had anyone extradited from the USA to answer crimes here?


Not true.

Of 57 requests by the UK since 2004, 40 of them have been sent back to UK.

[Oscar Namechange]

LarsMac;1400973 wrote: Not true.

Of 57 requests by the UK since 2004, 40 of them have been sent back to UK.


Do you have a link ? We are led to believe here by media that this Is not the case.

[flopstock]

Bruv;1400948 wrote: Now this could be serious or it could be humorous..................I didn't think American's did irony.


Generally speaking, we don't. However, the rich will hire domestics to do it for them.

[Snowfire]

oscar;1400978 wrote: Do you have a link ? We are led to believe here by media that this Is not the case.


LarsMac is right. There was an extradition treaty signed in 2003 and ratified in 2004. Some would argue that its not entirely equal.

FactCheck Q and A: Is the US-UK extradition treaty unfair? | The FactCheck Blog

[Saint_]

Bruv;1400948 wrote: Now this could be serious or it could be humorous..................I didn't think American's did irony.


It's seriously humorous...or humorously serious. I'm personally pissed that that we now have a reputation for torture. My father, who fought valorously in WWII against that kind of thing, would be aghast.

On the other hand, as a military officer, I consider the theft and release of classified information as treason.

[AnneBoleyn]

Bruv;1400948 wrote: Now this could be serious or it could be humorous..................I didn't think American's did irony.
Now that's ironic.

[koan]

Saint_;1400988 wrote: It's seriously humorous...or humorously serious. I'm personally pissed that that we now have a reputation for torture. My father, who fought valorously in WWII against that kind of thing, would be aghast.

On the other hand, as a military officer, I consider the theft and release of classified information as treason.


Assange didn't steal it. He published it.

[koan]

flopstock;1400980 wrote: Generally speaking, we don't. However, the rich will hire domestics to do it for them.


hehe. that was awesome.

[koan]

OK, so this is good.

I'm reposting this here because the author is asking for everyone to spread the traffic that crashed his site.

from Craig Murray's website (former UK ambassador)



America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally

by craig on August 16, 2012 11:30 am

UPDATE

100,000 HITS IN 100 MINUTES CRASHED THE SITE. WE DON’T KNOW YET IF GENUINE INTEREST OR DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK. OUR BRILLIANT WEBHOSTS HAVE QUADRUPLED THE RESOURCE, BUT IF YOU CAN HELP TAKE THE STRAIN BY REPOSTING I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL.

I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.

This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most subscribed single international treaty in the world.

The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or qualification elsewhere in the treaty.

Article 22

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter

them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises

of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the

mission or impairment of its dignity.

3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of

transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.

The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.

The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.

I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in Number 10.

There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles.

[LarsMac]

flopstock;1400980 wrote: Generally speaking, we don't. However, the rich will hire domestics to do it for them.


We could never afford domestics. We have to hire imports.

[Bruv]

The UK authorities didn't feel the need to enter the Libyan Embassy when an occupant shot and killed an unarmed Police officer in the street outside.

So why now enter an Embassy on behalf of a third party on the pretext it concerns a sexual assault in yet another country ?

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1401030 wrote: The UK authorities didn't feel the need to enter the Libyan Embassy when an occupant shot and killed an unarmed Police officer in the street outside.

So why now enter an Embassy on behalf of a third party on the pretext it concerns a sexual assault in yet another country ? It stinks doesn't It ?

You have to laugh ( not In a ha ha ha kind of way ), there are 14 year old kids shooting each other on the streets In gang culture but there's 40 police officers surrounding the embassy In the hope Assange will step outside the building....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ounce.html

[YZGI]

oscar;1401049 wrote: It stinks doesn't It ?

You have to laugh ( not In a ha ha ha kind of way ), there are 14 year old kids shooting each other on the streets In gang culture but there's 40 police officers surrounding the embassy In the hope Assange will step outside the building....

Julian Assange: The threadbare room inside the Ecuadorian embassy where fugitive is hiding... as police wait outside to pounce | Mail Online


He must have really pissed of the wrong rich person.

[Saint_]

koan;1401016 wrote: Assange didn't steal it. He published it.


So if a bank robber gives me money...that's not stolen and I can spend it?

Nope. He's the leader of a criminal conspiracy and the fact that another member of the conspiracy transferred it to him doesn't absolve guilt.

He has violated the Espionage Act of 1917: notice the "or aids another" and "aids conspiracy clauses.

Title I - ESPIONAGE

Section 1

That:

(a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information, concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defence, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, coaling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, or other place connected with the national defence, owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control or the United States, or of any of its officers or agents, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired. or stored, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place within the meaning of section six of this title; or

(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing or note of anything connected with the national defence; or

(c) whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another to receive or obtain from any other person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defence, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this title; or

(d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, wilfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

Section 2

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicated, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to, or aids, or induces another to, communicate, deliver or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly and document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defence, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years: Provided, That whoever shall violate the provisions of subsection:

(a) of this section in time of war shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years; and

(b) whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, shall collect, record, publish or communicate, or attempt to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval of military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification of any place, or any other information relating to the public defence, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years.

Section 3

Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, shall wilfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.

Section 4

If two or more persons conspire to violate the provisions of section two or three of this title, and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as in said sections provided in the case of the doing of the act the accomplishment of which is the object of such conspiracy. Except as above provided conspiracies to commit offences under this title shall be punished as provided by section thirty-seven of the Act to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States approved March fourth, nineteen hundred and nine.

Section 5

Whoever harbours or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offence under this title shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

Section 6

The President in time of war or in case of national emergency may by proclamation designate any place other than those set forth in subsection:

(a) of section one hereof in which anything for the use of the Army or Navy is being prepared or constructed or stored as a prohibited place for the purpose of this title: Provided, That he shall determine that information with respect thereto would be prejudicial to the national defence.

Section 7

Nothing contained in this title shall be deemed to limit the jurisdiction of the general courts-martial, military commissions, or naval courts-martial under sections thirteen hundred and forty-two, thirteen hundred and forty-three, and sixteen hundred and twenty-four of the Revised Statutes as amended.

Section 8

The provisions of this title shall extend to all Territories, possessions, and places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States whether or not contiguous thereto, and offences under this title, when committed upon the high seas or elsewhere within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and outside the territorial limits thereof shall be punishable hereunder.

[Oscar Namechange]

Sorry but I just think these charges In Sweden are pretty trumped up. I'd bet my last penny that the moment he touches down In Stockholm, there'll be no trial, just him on the first jet to the USA.

It stinks...

Snowdrop Is right.... Shame on our Government for not going to the same lengths when WPC Fletcher was shot from the Libyian Embassy.

[koan]

Saint... The wikileaks cables were printed in newspapers. They didn't just go on the wikileaks site. If Assange committed treason it would have to be a) against Australia and b) all the newspapers who ran the cables should have portions of their staff arrested.

[gmc]

LarsMac;1400973 wrote: Not true.

Of 57 requests by the UK since 2004, 40 of them have been sent back to UK.


That is correct but it was not until after 911 that the US finally took action to stop norad funding the IRA and finally declared the IRA a terrorist organisation

Real IRA designated terrorists - Telegraph

They still have not allowed the extradition of IRA suspects - on the grounds they would not get a fair trial in the UK. The US has always had a rather selective definition of terrorists

They also have a rather selective definition of free speech. Assange hasn't committed treason he is not an american. I note they still haven't brought bradley manning to trial - why not? maybe there is actually no case to answer and donl;t want him in an open court with a jury of his peers.