UK: 'We're legally bound to arrest Mr Assange'

The UK's Foreign Secretary has refused to rule out storming the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest Julian Assange and pack him off to Sweden. On Tuesday, The Right Honourable William Jefferson Hague met with the vice president of Ecuador over the Assange issue. When questioned about it by the BBC on Wednesday, Hague described the …

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for fecks sake

William Hague's gone even further down in my estimation. We're a country that's in a huge amount of debt, and we're pissing money away surrounding an embassy to try to arrest a citizen of another country who's wanted in a different country. If there was ever time for a bit of calculated police incompetence, it was now.

For example:

"Oh shit, he escaped while we went for a kebab*", or something of the likes.

He's not been charged with a crime, the Swedes can't be arsed to come over here to interview him, so fuck them. The whole situation smells badly of a US conspiracy anyway. Then Ecuador offered Sweden and the UK an out in terms of having to deal with the fuckwit, and we're not taking it!?? Instead we're pissing off the international community by sabre-rattling like a bunch of dicks.

Our own judicial system's clogged up enough as it is without worrying about a pair of Swedish broads who are engaging in a game of "he said"/"she said" at the behest of the US government - as I said, if the Swedes truly gave a fuck they'd have come over here and interviewed him, and subsequently charged him, instead of pissing about.

Arrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh this makes me sooooo mad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Just in case there was any doubt about who wears the pants (and who the skirt) in the "special relationship".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Sometimes wearing the skirt and getting a good rogering is not so bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

That's some nice rape apology you've got going on there.

Fact of the matter is that Swedish criminal law demands that you be given the opportunity to face the prosecutor in an interview immediately prior to being charged with a crime - it gives you the chance to face your accuser and argue why you shouldn't be charged. Julian Assange is wanted for that interview. It follows that it can't happen anywhere other than Sweden, as he will most likely be arrested and charged immediately after the event.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Videoconferencing would allow Assange to face the prosecutor and argue why he shouldn't be charged. If he's happy to face the prosecutor that way, let him. If not, fly the prosecutor over at a cost of a few hundred quid for the airline ticket and however much in day-rate for the prosecutor.

If Assange WAS then charged he'd be a fleeing criminal rather than just a nutjob- not convicted of anything- holed up in an embassy. And the Ecuadorians would want slightly less to do with him as a convicted rapist on the run.

[Graham Marsden]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"That's some nice rape apology you've got going on there."

That's some nice pre-judgement you've got going on there...

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@Graham Marsden Re: Oh for fecks sake

"That's some nice rape apology you've got going on there."

That's some nice pre-judgement you've got going on there...

-=-

FFS, Really?

Are you now denying that Assange hadn't had his day in court where he was allowed to appeal the EAW?

Clearly he isn't going to be tried in Britain for an alleged crime he committed in Sweden, right?

Are you saying that he should have to face his accusers?

[Graham Marsden]

@Ian Michael Gumby - Re: @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

FFS can you not understand that he has *NOT* yet even been charged with rape let alone *CONVICTED* of it?

To say that this is "rape apology" is to totally fail to comprehend the situation.

[Matthew 25]

@Graham Marsden - Re: @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

"FFS can you not understand that he has *NOT* yet even been charged with rape let alone *CONVICTED* of it?"

Can you not understand he has to go to Sweden before he can be charged. Thats why they want him.

[Graham Marsden]

@Matthew 25 Re: @Graham Marsden - @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

The point is that the claims of "rape apology" are nonsense since it hasn't yet been determined, even under the extremely broad Swedish law, that it *was* rape.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@GM. Re: @Matthew 25 @Graham Marsden - @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

And my point is that Assange is accused of rape, fled jurisdiction, appealed the EAW, lost and then jumped bail.

FFS, how many times does it take for the simple point is that under Swedish law, they have to follow procedure and question him before they charge him, so he has to go back to Sweden so that they can charge him w rape.

When you say 'determined that is was rape', you ar talking about haviing a trial,

Or do you mean that Ny who is the prosecutor doesn't think that there is enough evidence to charge him w rape yet perjured herself in British courts? Really?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: @Matthew 25 @Graham Marsden - @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

"The point is that the claims of "rape apology" are nonsense since it hasn't yet been determined..." True, but it must be very hard for even a blinkered troll like yourself to deny he jumped bail, which is a seperate offence. It is also impossible for anyone but a completely blinkered A$$nut groupie like yourself to deny that A$$nut had a full and transparent legal process regarding the EAW action.

[Graham Marsden]

Re: @Matthew 25 @Graham Marsden - @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

""The point is that the claims of "rape apology" are nonsense since it hasn't yet been determined..." True,"

Well at least I've got *you* to agree with that, now can you persuade your fellow "blinkered troll" Mr Gumby to accept that?

All the rest of your post (and his) is irrelevant to that point.

[Vic]

Re: @Matthew 25 @Graham Marsden - @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

> now can you persuade your fellow "blinkered troll" Mr Gumby to accept that?

You'll have to persuade him that Oracle isn't going to win beelions off Google in their little legal spat first...

Vic.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@Graham Marsden Re: @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

It seems that you don't understand the situation.

With respect to the EAW, Assange had his day in court. That were there an issue of Political Asylum, it would have been addressed by the courts in Britain. The fact is that his attorneys raised this issue in their third attempt to appeal the EAW. Are you now saying that Ecuador is actually a better judge of what constitutes a need for political asylum? That's exactly what you and everyone else who supports Assange and Ecuador is saying.

GB, Sweden are not capable of respecting the rights of an individual and face persecution.

Clearly that is not the case. Assange was afforded his rights within GB and appealed the EAW.

Assange lost all 3 appeals.

FFS, you live in a country where you don't understand the simple laws of the country. You're making the public schools in the US look better and better every day.

[Graham Marsden]

Re: @Graham Marsden @Ian Michael Gumby - @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

"It seems that you don't understand the situation."

It seems you're moving the goalposts. I was referring to the OP's claim of "rape apology". Until he has been *CONVICTED* of rape (even under Sweden's extremely broad laws) there has been no "apology" because there has been no judgement that there even *was* a rape (unless you agree with the "all men are rapists" feminist who seems to have been the instigator of this nonsense).

FFS you can't even comprehend what's being discussed...

[Local Group]

Re: @Ian Michael Gumby

"Are you now saying that Ecuador is actually a better judge of what constitutes a need for political asylum?"

So you are saying that once England, and her legal system, decides that someone with Assange's past doesn't have a claim for political asylum there and must be extradited to Sweden, that the 200 other nations on the planet are obliged to accept the English court's opinion on the matter and also not offer him asylum in their countries and embassies?

Condescend much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

The answer is simple.

Assange claims the rape allegations are a smokescreen to extradite him to the US. Sweden denies this.

All Sweden needs to do therefore, is give an assurance he won't face extradition to any third country once he goes to Sweden. The two one night stands get their day in court and Assange isn't put on a CIA flight to a torture gulag. Everyone gets what they publicly claim they want. Ecuador has already suggested this, but the Swedes refuse.

Any idea why that might be? .

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

".....All Sweden needs to do therefore, is give an assurance he won't face extradition...." OMG! How many different ways do you A$$nut groupies need it explained to you that it would be ILLEGAL for the Swedish government to give such an assurance. How thick are you lot?

[Annihilator]

Re: @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

"All Sweden needs to do therefore, is give an assurance he won't face extradition to any third country once he goes to Sweden"

And for the 7 billionth time, they *can't* and Assange's team know this. They could "assure" all they like, but it wouldn't be a legal agreement as he's effectively asking for immunity from any further prosecution, regardless of what it is. The Swedish courts can't make a decision on a hypothetical, non-existent extradition order. Common sense should tell you this, it would be a weird and fucked up legal system that allowed you to make a decision in advance of a question.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@Cap'n Re: @Graham Marsden Oh for fecks sake

To answer your question...

Because under the existing EU treaties, they already assure that in order to honor a third country's extradition request both countries (GB and Sweden) would have to agree. This would afford Assange two countries legal systems and appeals processes. Not to mention the EU as a third set of courts. This would mean years of freedom while he potentially abuses 3 legal systems in the process.

So he already has that protection.

But he isn't asking for that. He is asking to not be extradited to the US period, when there are no charges being brought by the US. He is essentially asking for a blanket immunity from any potential prosecution that could be raised in the future.

This has been discussed in depth, yet Assnut's supporters seem to ignore this and still think this whole thing is just about questioning him. He is going to be charged.

[bean520]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"Fact of the matter is that Swedish criminal law demands that you be given the opportunity to face the prosecutor in an interview immediately prior to being charged with a crime - it gives you the chance to face your accuser and argue why you shouldn't be charged"

Fact of the matter is there is no reason why this could not be done via video link, like Assange and his legal team suggested

[Annihilator]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"Fact of the matter is there is no reason why this could not be done via video link, like Assange and his legal team suggested"

Because it's the equivalent for an arrest warrant in the UK, it's how the Swedish legal system works. But maybe they should change all that on the whim of a paranoid egotist's say so?

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

I thought the alleged offence was failure to wear a condom. When did it become rape?

[Annihilator]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

@Ian Johnston - maybe you should read what the *four* complaints/investigations are for, of which yours is only one?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"I thought the alleged offence was failure to wear a condom. When did it become rape?" Regardless of the original offence in Sweden, A$$nut is now a wanted criminal as he has skipped bail here in the UK.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

> We're a country that's in a huge amount of debt, and we're pissing money away surrounding an embassy to try to arrest a citizen of another country who's wanted in a different country

So you're implying that the UK wouldn't be paying those officers' wages if they were doing something other than surrounding an embassy?

[vic 4]

Re: wouldn't be paying those officers' wages

No, but we'd be paying for them to do something worth while.

[gap]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

No, they would be doing something of benefit to the UK. (or perhaps humanity)

[Anonymous Coward 101]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

I love how lefty hipsters (e.g. George Galloway, 90% of the commenters here) now tell us that rape is OK if you fink she's gaggin' for it. It's like a seventies plod saying to a woman complaining of rape 'look luv, if you went out in a skirt like that men are going to notice'. Also, it's funny how Sweden is now a fascist state.

I don't know what Julian Assange did or didn't do, but it's eye opening what some people are arguing.

[Magnus_Pym]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"I love how lefty hipsters"

I reserve the right to ignore any comment with a party political standpoint of any direction or colour (color?) because they are clearly stem from prejudice.

[Anonymous Coward 101]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

@Magnus_Pym

Fair enough. Replace 'lefty hipsters' with 'sanctimonious cumstains'.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

'@Magnus_Pym

Fair enough. Replace 'lefty hipsters' with 'sanctimonious cumstains'.'

Lefty hipster cumstains will do nicely, thank you

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100177730/in-their-worship-of-julian-assange-the-standard-bearers-of-the-left-are-destroying-everything-they-once-held-dear/

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: Oh for fecks sake

The Left's abandonment of the values they claim to hold dear is nothing new. For a perfect example you only have to look at Archbishop Desmond Tutu, once held up as a beacon of hope to many during the fight against Apartheid. Since Mandela's release, Tutu has gone off the deep end in a quest to maintain some relevance, shouting stridently at journalists whenever they can be bothered to listen. Tutu's latest flight from reality is a demand that Bush and Blair stand trial for invading Iraq. Of course, Tutu's sudden enthusiasm for such an action has nothing to do with deflecting interest from his political buddies in the ANC being in hot water over the shooting of black miners. And no, you mustn't compare the events at Marikana to Sharpsville, that comparison would be so un-PC! And you definately mustn't ask how come those ANC leaders that promised the poor SA blacks so much would change are now so happy to be working with exactly the same platinum mining company as used to work with the old Apartheid regime, and was part of the old Lonrho group that were caught sanctions-busting to Rhodesia.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

By using an idiotic generalisation like "left hipsters" you pretty much ensure that most people won't read your comment beyond said phrase.

[magrathea]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

How dishonest - nobody in the conversation has rationalised rape. Your use of this dishonest, strawman, shaming tactic argument form, says a lot about the strength of your core position

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Whilst I have very little time for that (IMHO) idiot Galloway, what he said about previous consent was not completely without some merit. What I say below is deliberately intended to provoke some thought.

I listened on Radio 4 to a representative from an organization campaigning for women's rights. It's gone from iPlayer now, so I can't get her name or who she represented, but the main idea of her point was that every insertion needs explicit consent (this was her language, and she used the words penis, willy and vagina before 18:00 on national radio, which simultaneously got her some respect from me, and also made me wonder what sort of adult uses 'willy' nowadays.)

Anyway. I know that I am nothing like the worlds best lover, but during a sexual act, I often completely withdraw, change position, and re-engage. If you take what this interviewee said as a definition of rape, then each time we change position, I would have to ask whether I still had permission to continue. And if I were to slip out or engage in some deep-thrusting that involves out-and-in-again, as seems enjoyable to my partner, I would need consent each time. So this is how it could go

Me: OK?

Partner: Yes,

Thrust, withdraw

Me: OK?

Partner: Yes

Thrust, withdraw

...repeat for a while...

Me: OK?

Partner :Yes YES oh YES! (she IS quicker than me - really)

Thrust, withdraw

Me: OK? ... OK? ...

Thrust

Partner: You rapist! You didn't wait for me to say yes!

OK, this is taking what was said literally, but lawyers are paid to take arguments to the extreme, and if her definition of rape and not-rape is correct, this is what could be argued.

Now Assange thinks that waking up in the same bed as a partner who was willing the previous night gives him automatic consent. It's a difficult question, and could be taken both ways. I certainly would not want to have to wake my wife up to ask, when she has enjoyed this different sort of wake up call in the past, but from what I remember hearing, Assange, fool that he is, used a condom or two the previous night, but did not in the morning. That's stupid, and shows no respect for the other person. In these days of incurable STIs, then rape may not be an unreasonable charge, although if there was an STI involved, assault, possibly with actual bodily harm (in English law, I don't know about Sweden) may be more appropriate (I sit back and wait to be flamed from both sides.)

The other thing that looks strange to me is that both women concerned appear not to have gone to the police immediately. I know that they may have needed some time to pluck up the courage and consider the implications of raising a rape accusation, but if you are trying to get something against a promiscuous person to get them into custody, how long would it take to find a participant in a one-night stand and offer them enough money so that they would lie about whether there was morning-after sex at all or whether it was by consent. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but you could manipulate a system like this to get someone into custody whether they were guilty or not. And once in custody..........

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Anyone else starting to suspect the el reg comment voting system has been compromised? 25 up votes within an hour and a half on a Thursday evening in a thread with half a dozen replies which have a few votes each...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

For a particularly idiotic post, too.

[diodesign]

Voting system

It's not entirely surprising given that the number of votes is a tiny fraction of the number of visits to the article.

Also, it was posted late on a Thursday evening UK time, but daytime US time.

C.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: diodesign

True, but I wonder how many of those up-votes were from accounts whose current IP address also happens to be that of a TOR exit node.

[Seele]

Re: Anyone else starting to suspect the el reg comment voting system has been compromised?

Hey troll! Go back to reddit.

Voting system is working just fine here. The slight inconvenience where you are taken from the thread to a separate page, and then have to click back makes one have to think before one votes. It discourages the casual upvoting/downvoting depending on whether you agree or disagree, and makes it a more deliberate matter.

You earned those downvotes because of the insidious, manipulative and deceptive nature of your comments.

[Psyx]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"Storming the embassy to snatch Assange could open other countries to taking a similarly relaxed view to the legitimacy of British diplomatic premises."

It won't BE an embassy if its diplomatic status is withdrawn. Is this really too hard to grasp:

The Embassy would be closed down because it is being used for a purpose other than the intended one.

Embassy staff are asked to leave the country and have their diplomatic accreditation withdrawn.

It ceases to be an Embassy.

People leave.

Julian is in a building. The police arrest him.

Simples.

Furthermore, Vienna Convention permits the use of Diplomatic Bags for carrying diplomatic papers. There is really no such thing as 'diplomatic freight', unless it composes of papers. Sure: It gets mis-used and plenty of other stuff has been smuggled via diplomatic bags. However, the UK would be well within their rights to search a big Assange-shaped parcel with 'diplomatic bag' stamped on it.

[Field Marshal Von Krakenfart]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Furthermore, Vienna Convention permits the use of Diplomatic Bags for carrying diplomatic papers. There is really no such thing as 'diplomatic freight', unless it composes of papers ...... However, the UK would be well within their rights to search a big Assange-shaped parcel with 'diplomatic bag' stamped on it.

Wrong. The UK grubberment doesn't think so either, in fact they weren't too pleased when the Zimbabwean grubberement opened a six-tonne freight delivery intended for the British mission in Harare.

While you're at it have a look at the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (pdf), article 27. Not only is the diplomatic bag inviolable, but the courier (including temporary couriers) is also so protected, "The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his functions. He shall enjoy person inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention".

Good to see that like that idiot Hague you don't let facts interfere with your opinion.

[Psyx]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

"Wrong."

Capitals don't make you right.

In case you didn't notice, Ecuador got caught by Italy sending 40kg of Coke through diplomatic bags earlier this year, and didn't complain. Britain complained because it was legitimate diplomatic baggage and they were not being naughty. But there are plenty of things that you are NOT allowed to send through diplomatic baggage. Like Julian Assange.

"While you're at it have a look at the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (pdf), article 27. Not only is the diplomatic bag inviolable, but the courier (including temporary couriers) is also so protected"

What the hell has that got to do with anything. Assange isn't a courier. Nobody mentioned a courier. Ecuador can't just make him a courier because that's not how it works. Sheesh.

Really: Learn what you're talking about. Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh for fecks sake

Right... and you're fine when this interpretation is applied by other governments to our embassies?

[Peter Johnstone]

careful!

Lines like "Satan will have to drive to work in a snow plough." could cause damage to a keyboard!

[mhenriday]

The Right Honourable William Jefferson Hague

does go on and on, does he right honourably not ? But does anybody in his right honourable mind listen to what the Right Honourable William Jefferson Hague has to say ?...

Henri

[Khaptain]

Once again a government fails it's people.

Will the British government also accept that foreign countries perform the same act on British embassies?

The more I read about current British politics, the more I wonder why anyone would ever want to do business with the brits.

I hope the Brits remember what serfdom means; they are returning to it !!!!!!

[Captain Save-a-ho]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

Amerika will beat them to it.

[LateNightLarry]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

Only if the "Back to the 1850's" RepubliCLOWN Party gets control...

Beer, because I'll need a whole lot of it if the RepubliCLOWNs win in November...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

Not enough "K"s

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

"I hope the Brits remember what serfdom means; they are returning to it !!!!!!"

Actually, we've never left it - which is why these dicks have been getting away with it at the top with such ease, and for so long.

[Sacioz]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

The aussies do not seem to mind.

[Big-nosed Pengie]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

On the contrary.

The Aussie government are happy to hand him over to the US Sweden.

The Aussie people, on the other hand, are disgusted.

[gap]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

Unlike the US, we (Aussies) abandon our citizens when it's not convenient for the government cause.

Would any of this been going on if Assange was a US citizen and he'd leaked Australian secrets?

[Tom 38]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

Would any of this been going on if Assange was a US citizen and he'd leaked Australian secrets?

A map with all the sheep on it?

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@ GAP ... Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

"Unlike the US, we (Aussies) abandon our citizens when it's not convenient for the government cause."

I really hate to break it to you but the Aussie government has its hands tied at the moment.

First Assange didn't ask them for any assistance while he was in the UK fighting the EAW.

Second since Assange hasn't gone back to Sweden to face his accusers, or be officially charged with a crime, he has yet had the opportunity to contact the embassy to ask for their assistance.

So no, you can't blame your government.

BTW, I predict that in the future when this all blows over, Assange will attempt to get on the Brit show "Celebrity Big Brother", only to be the first one in the house to be evicted for being a prat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @ GAP ... Once again a government fails it's people.

BUT why didnt Assange go to the Aussie embassy and hide?

what sort of welcome comittee do they have for their "son"?

we should be told

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @ GAP ... Once again a government fails it's people.

>BTW, I predict that in the future when this all blows over, Assange will attempt to

>get on the Brit show "Celebrity Big Brother", only to be the first one in the house to be evicted for

>being a r*p*st.

I fixed that for you. You're welcome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

At least in Australia you all vote - compulsory voting means the government's actions are supported by the majority of voters.

In the UK and US, a minority of people vote. Many people complain, but these same people don't bother to vote. They is why Cameron and his Oxford chums (all but Clegg - who went to Cambridge) get into power. It is the same reason the Republicans stand a chance of getting into power in the USA.

So good on you Australia. The government may fail its people but in Australia it's likely the people will vote it out of power.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

@AC 09:51. I am in two minds about this, generally, but: If you can't be arsed to get off your sofa and walk a couple of hundred yards to the polling station, once every two to four years, you don't deserve a vote. At the point you can be arsed I think that you deserve your vote again.

Or, to put it another way: Staying away and being apathetic says as much about you as taking part in the vote does.

What does get my goat is the amount of people who don't bother to vote who continually bitch about how the country is run.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

Is that because you support one of the two main parties that don't represent them?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

"Will the British government also accept that foreign countries perform the same act on British embassies?...." Well, Khaptain, let's look at some prior incidences. In Iran, when the mullahs got upset, a "spontaneous mob" trashed the UK embassy (some of them being caught trying to search through paperwork for UK secrets). In Libya they laid seige to the embassy. In Yemen the "locals" have attacked the British embassy on several occaissions, at least once with an RPG. In Argentina, "protestors" from the Quebracho "Bolivarian" movement (in no way linked to Drag Queen Kirchner's "Peronist" party, of course) attacked the British embassy in April. Seems that quite a few countries don't give a rat's fart about "sovereignty" or the Vienna Convention, and the latter only seems to apply between civilised countries, not faux-democracies. So it would seem those likely to abuse the British embassies in return are already inclined to do so and unlikely to worry about the Vienna Convention.

[Psyx]

Re: Once again a government fails it's people.

"Will the British government also accept that foreign countries perform the same act on British embassies?"

Umm... they do, chap. It even happens to other countries.

Things to Google:

Sweedish embassy closed

British embassy in Iran stormed

British trade offices in Russia closed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd quite like to see them storm the embassy.

Not to arrest assange or anything, but to see the UK commit political suicide.

[Anonymous Coward]

Very few countries like us anyway, it's just business as usual. Also, we have submarines armed with nuclear warheads. Your move South America.

[I ain't Spartacus]

What is this, Millwall? "No one likes us, no one likes us, no one likes us - we don't care!"

And we've got nukes!

You're goin' home in a Quito ambulance!

[Anonymous Coward]

I see, they gonna use that to get into the Embassy then? Might be a little messy for the rest of London :P

[I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects]

While the UK government claims to have legal right on its side, many in the international community are not so sure. Storming the embassy to snatch Assange could open other countries to taking a similarly relaxed view to the legitimacy of British diplomatic premises.

I'd like to see the US embassies invaded since there is every reason to suppose they are pits of crime in every country they appear.

And why wasn't Murdoch hauled over the coals like this?

Mr Hague on his holiday at the time was he?

[Ian Michael Gumby]

"And why wasn't Murdoch hauled over the coals like this?"

Because he didn't flee jurisdiction in the first place?

Because he didn't spend years in an appeals process fighting an EAW to go back and face hs charges in the first place?

Because when the Britsh courts ruled against him in courts, he didn't run away and create an international incident?

Sorry old chap, unlike Murdoch, A$$nuts made his own situation worse.

[disgruntled yank]

Wow

1. Is he going to read the Harfleur speech from Henry V before he charges on in?

2. Do the Ecuadorans possess a cow and a catapult?

[Will Godfrey]

Re: Wow

I'm sure he intends to use the full farce of the law,

[RetroTom]

Hot Air Balloon

Just give the guy a hot air balloon and be done with it, maybe a Zeppelin? ;-)

Once he's over international waters he can bail and Ecuador can pick him up ;-)

Simply seeing jets scrambled to stop a big balloon would be worth it alone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hot Air Balloon

Jets?

A police helicopter and a knacker with a captive bolt gun could stop a balloon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hot Air Balloon

You do know that helicopters have these things called "rotors" that shouldn't probably brush against anything? Unless you'ŗe bored, of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hot Air Balloon

>You do know that helicopters have these things called "rotors" that shouldn't probably brush against

>anything? Unless you'ŗe bored, of course.

You do know he mentioned a bolt gun? Unless you're feeling stoopid of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hot Air Balloon

Not as stupid as people coming up with James-Bond style semi-fascist techno-fantasies exposing their sociopath nature.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hot Air Balloon

What part of the phrase "captive bolt" 'didn't you quite understand, retard?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hot Air Balloon

Is this a special "captive bolt"' that isn't captive, genius?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hot Air Balloon

You do know they don't actually "shoot bolts" yes? As in, the range is a great deal less than the length of the rotor blades.... I think you'll find helicopter cops don't normally use batons to stop cars, either :P

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hot Air Balloon

Yes, I can't imagine why they don't do it in slaughterhouses :P

[Stu J]

Surely

Just diplomatic-crate him the hell out of there, but fill in the paperwork properly this time...

i.e. a bit like this, but do it properly:

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Surely

"Just diplomatic-crate him the hell out of there, but fill in the paperwork properly this time..."

Because it's totally illegal under the Vienna Convention. Diplomatic Bags are for diplomatic PAPERS.

Sheesh.

The problem with this debate is most of those involved are going on about this "law" and that, and have got them totally wrong.

[Field Marshal Von Krakenfart]

Re: Surely

You again..... which grubberment misinformation shill are you?

According to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (pdf), article 27, the diplomatic bag AND the diplomatic courier are inviolable

[Psyx]

"which grubberment misinformation shill are you?"

"You again..... which grubberment misinformation shill are you?"

Wow. Conspiracy theorist, or what?

I'm just a guy who happened to bother READING the convention instead of citing it. You think that the government pay me to try to bang common sense into deluded conspiracy theorists heads on an IT forum?

Are you insane?

"According to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (pdf), article 27, the diplomatic bag AND the diplomatic courier are inviolable"

Yes, you are correct. However, the diplomatic bag is for papers, communications and items intended for official use; as is clear from context. ***It is not for putting people in***. The fact that 'bags' with people in have been opened without it then causing a legitimate complaint that the bags were tampered with is your clue.

And I don't see what relevance the courier is. Assange is not a courier nor could not be accredited as one legitimately.

You clearly have no actual clue what you're citing. Just a bunch of delusions coupled with a tragic misunderstanding of international diplomacy and law.

[Psyx]

"According to the 1961 Vienna Convention... the diplomatic bag.. are inviolable"

While I was finding something simple enough to sink in (ie a wikipedia article on diplomatic bags), I stumbled upon this little gem:

"In January 2012, Italy detected 40 kilograms of cocaine smuggled in a diplomatic pouch from Ecuador, arresting five. Ecuador insisted it had inspected the shipment for drugs at the foreign ministry before it was sent to Milan"

So... not only does that rather moot your argument that governments can send what the fuck they like in a diplomatic bag and that it can't be opened...

It also makes a joke of Ecuador trying to preach Vienna Convention to us!

[nuked]

Can we PLEASE...

...stop reporting that anyone intends to 'storm' an embassy. It's so Daily Mail'esque.

What has been threatened, or indeed, merely pointed out is that the British have the power to remove the embassy status of the building that they are all in. They would send the diplomats home, or elsewhere to a new embassy building, and walk into what-is-no-longer-an-embassy and arrest Assange.

Not that I agree that this action is at all wise, or justified, but this is very different from 'storming' an embassy, which implies some sort of SAS-type invasion of foreign soil. Indeed, whilst politically suicidal, the reality is that the rather less interesting iteration actually on the table would not trigger some mass slaughter of British diplomats around the globe; I would hope.

Sorry.

[BongoJoe]

I can see that going well

ring... ring...

"Hello, Mr Ambassador. Just to let you know that of five minutes ago your building has been declared 'non-embassy status' and in about three seconds our men from Mi5 will be entering your building.

Oh, and don't delete any files or shred any papers , there's a good chap. ?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I can see that going well

Darn, there's going to be a lot of disappointed rich UK gap-year slackers if that all kicks off :P

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I can see that going well

"Darn, there's going to be a lot of disappointed rich UK gap-year slackers if that all kicks off :P"

I would just like to point out that everywhere you go in the world, and I mean everywhere from the quieter bits of Borneo to the flea pits of Bolivia, you're all but guaranteed to find an Englishman holed up somewhere in the proximity, more so that any other nationality apart from those of the locality. They could be ex-pats doing work, on a mission of some kind, ex-forces in some sort of disgrace, or most likely the capable work-sky touring.

It might be simply because a UK passport is just about the most versatile permit in the world, granting you free or cheaper access to more countries and longer stays of leave. I fear that's what really might be at stake, and what was already wilfully eroded by the previous government too.

There really is a pie factory in a town called Fray Bentos. It's in Uruguay. ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I can see that going well

Mmmm Fray Bentos, nearly forgotten about those, actually pretty decent contents for a completely metal-encased pie! Always tremendously surprised they didn't explode when cooked.

[Psyx]

Re: I can see that going well

"Hello, Mr Ambassador. Just to let you know that of five minutes ago your building has been declared 'non-embassy status' and in about three seconds our men from Mi5 will be entering your building.

Oh, and don't delete any files or shred any papers , there's a good chap. ?"

Why do you think they'd do that, exactly? That would be stupid.

They'd be given good time to leave and Assange would be the only one in there when the old Bill turn up.

You also might want to look up what MI5 actually do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I can see that going well

>You also might want to look up what MI5 actually do.

Uh, MI5 not 9 to 5? (g)

[Annihilator]

Re: Can we PLEASE...

@nuked - agreed completely! Not only is it not "storming", it's merely reporting the fact that when asked if they would rule out any of the options available to them, they said "no"

[Magnus_Pym]

Re: Can we PLEASE...

So what will happen if the UK says that the building no longer has embassy status and they yes it does? Some kind of not violent protest by the Special Branch? Get real.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@nuked ... Re: Can we PLEASE...

"Not that I agree that this action is at all wise, or justified, but this is very different from 'storming' an embassy, which implies some sort of SAS-type invasion of foreign soil. Indeed, whilst politically suicidal, the reality is that the rather less interesting iteration actually on the table would not trigger some mass slaughter of British diplomats around the globe; I would hope."

I hate to be the barer of bad news, but there wouldn't be much if any backlash.

Sure, there will be the 3 or 4 countries who are joined at the hip with Ecuador in their ideological views on world politics, however the bulk of the world could care less. In truth, Ecuador is the one who is in the wrong here. Assange is not being persecuted and is facing a criminal charge of rape in a third country. Ecuador should not have given him asylum in the first place.

When the dust settles, Ecuador and others will then resume diplomatic relations. In terms of damage to the UK, none more than those caused by the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympics.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @nuked ... Can we PLEASE...

Thought the Greek Pensioner was surprisingly funky, thanks very much ;)

[Psyx]

Re: Can we PLEASE...

"What has been threatened, or indeed, merely pointed out is that the British have the power to remove the embassy status "

Downvoted by people who do not accept reality, and prefer to live in a black-helicopter world where the SAS will storm an active embassy in order to shoot Saint Assange who didn't in fact jump bail and isn't even guilty of that crime, at the orders of the CIA and Illuminanti..

[g e]

British government willing to see sense

But unfortunately is completely unable to think clearly with Yank Cock stuck so far up its arse.

Special Relationship. 'Special' as in 'Special Sauce'

[Ian Michael Gumby]

Re: British government willing to see sense

"But unfortunately is completely unable to think clearly with Yank Cock stuck so far up its arse."

Wow. WTF?

FFS, the 'Yanks' haven't made any requests to the Brits about Assange. Period. There is no foundation to support your homo-erotic wet dream of how foreign policies work.

Clearly the subtleties of International Law are lost on the bulk of the posters. Try and be reasonable.

Assage had his day in court. Under the EAW and International Law, he was afforded the right to appeal his extradition. Not once, but 3 times. He could also have gone to the EU and appeal the EAW as a final straw.

So to day he didn't have his day in a UK court is unfair and just plain wrong.

You may not agree with the court's ruling, but the judge did rule based on the evidence presented. Of course based on a lot of the comments here, many ignored the facts of the case when they made their posts and probably hadn't seen any of the court documents which are actually available online. (Go and Google for them.)

Rather than face up to the facts, Assange jumped bail and ran and hid in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Here Assange, beyond the EAW, had committed a crime in Britain by jumping bail. Because of what Assange did, Britain's hands were tied. The UK has no choice but to do anything and everything within their powers to bring Assange in and put him on a plane to Sweden.

The US has nothing to do with this. As it has been said Ad Nauseum, the US has other and better options if and when they so choose to act.

Assange tied Britain's hands. So if anything blame him.

As to storming the embassy that's on one extreme.

While many have the idea in the head that it would be like a scene from Star Wars where the storm troopers charge the building, that wouldn't happen.

The British Government merely has to expel the diplomats and notify Ecuador to clear out the embassy and that they don't want diplomatic ties with them. Under international law, Ecuador would have to leave the embassy and the embassy is no longer a safe haven for Assange.

At that time, the British police would search everything leaving the embassy and would then would arrest Assange. Or Ecuador would realize that they played their hand and turn him over.

If anything, your analogy should be that its Assange who wants to fsck over Britain and they aren't standing for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: British government willing to see sense

"But unfortunately is completely unable to think clearly with Yank Cock stuck so far up its arse."

Using analogies to anal rape is not big and it's not clever. It does, of course, mean that I can now ignore anything you have to say because you're not capable of sensible, mature discussion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: British government willing to see sense

I think he meant a consensual, but also master-and-vassal kind of analogy ;)

[Anonymous John]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/assange-to-be-tempted-from-embassy-with-trail-of-secrets-2012082038528

"Last week Assange attempted to sneak out of the embassy in a very big laundry basket but his plans were ruined when he published them on the Wikileaks website."

[Boris the Cockroach]

you owe me

A new keyboard and 1/2 a pint of old thumper

[Psyx]

"Last week Assange attempted to sneak out of the embassy in a very big laundry basket but his plans were ruined when he published them on the Wikileaks website."

They could just leave a sleeping woman on the pavement, of course. He can't resist those, either.

Or maybe just say TIME magazine's photographer is out the front, for another front-page photo. He can't say no to a bit of media whoring, either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Suggestion to Government..

Infect the water supply to the embassy with bacteria relating to food poisoning. Then arrest assange on his way to the local hospital as he, once again, tries to save his own neck.

[Anonymous Coward 15]

Re: Suggestion to Government..

Biological weapons will land them in hotter water than entering an embassy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Suggestion to Government..

Nah - it's Thames Water, this happens all the time.

"Under normal operating conditions Cryptosporidium is removed by effective water treatment, principally by coagulation and filtration.

However, due to the parasites' small size and inherent resistance to chlorine, there exists a small potential that the organism could penetrate the multiple treatment barriers set in place to remove it."

http://customerhelp.thameswater.co.uk/app/answers/detail/a_id/415/~/what-is-cryptosporidium%3F

See - entirely possible...

[S4qFBxkFFg]

Re: Suggestion to Government..

What's more likely is an "accidental" fire, with the same effect. I'm sure there's at least some old wiring in that block.

[nexsphil]

Re: Suggestion to Government..

>he, once again, tries to save his own neck

Come on now, Assange may be many things, but surely not the type of scumbag that would try to save his own neck.

[Anonymous Coward]

I rather hope he gets extradited

I don't care much about him but when Sweden betrays us all and disappears him we get more grounds to review extradition treaties.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

Re: I rather hope he gets extradited

Funny, but I seriously doubt first that the US would request his extradition from Sweden because they are painfully aware of the situation.

Second even if asked, I seriously doubt that Sweden would honor that request if presented.

So Assange gets the full term of 6 years for being a prat. (Ok, even there I doubt that would happen and that assumes he is actually found guilty of anything.) [This is an important point. He could go to trial and not be found guilty, however his running and jumping bail doesn't really support this outcome...]

So then he's put on a plane back to Australia, where he could face some other potential legal issues. There was talk of the Australian Government taking away his passport. But then he'd be free to talk to the Ecuadorian government about getting a new one...

But the point is that no matter how this plays out, you can bet that it will be done by the book. And you can bet that there will definitely be people protesting its outcome.

[toadwarrior]

I'm glad we have enough money and no debt so we can piss away money on stupid crap like this.

[Anonymous Coward]

its only

stupid because of Assange's paranoia/guilt. If it had been anyone else he would have been on the plane to Sweden and a fair trial ages ago. Its not the UK government that have dragged it out to this point it is assange and his deluded followers.

[John H Woods]

Obligation to arrest.

Let's say a British Citizen in Sweden is required for questioning. We send them an EAW, and they detain the suspect. Unfortunately, during extradition proceedings, suspect seeks immunity in Stockholm within the embassy of some South American country.

Question. Is this still Sweden's problem? I suspect they would claim that they had tried everything they were obliged to try, and it was now out of their hands and between Britain and that other Country. Would anybody think that was unreasonable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Obligation to arrest.

It is still their problem as the suspect is still in their country.

[nuked]

Re: Obligation to arrest.

Are you saying that the government is doing all of this without stopping and considering whether its actually at all necessary; or, that there's something else, perhaps maybe possibly, going on here that is motivating the UK to take such an extraordinary and unprecedented stance?

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Obligation to arrest.

The British courts have ruled that Assange has to be sent to Sweden. After many appeals. The government have no leeway. They're as much bound by that decision as Assange is.

This isn't a normal extradition treaty, where the Home Secretary gets a veto. This is another bit of shitty European law. But we signed up to it... And so we're stuck with it. The government have no choice but to comply with the law.

[Pen-y-gors]

Re: Obligation to arrest.

The government and Police have a lot of obligations, including this one - but time and limited resources means they must prioritise - and they don't station a copper 24/7 outside every house to arrest possible burglars, I'm not sure that picking up Assange is/should be a higher priority that arresting drug pushers and other bad people - just think how many paedophiles are walking free because those coppers are hanging around outside the embassy - won't someone think of the children?

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Obligation to arrest.

Well strangely enough, the police do prioritise. And I think you'll find the things they priorities are crimes against the person and sex offences. With property crime coming a long, long way down the list.

Assange is accused of rape and sexual coercion. i.e. having sex with one woman who hadn't consented to sex with no condom, and waiting until she was asleep to go ahead anyway - and lying on top of another woman, pinning her down, trying to have sex with her, while she was holding her legs together to stop him, and trying to reach for a condom, while he grabbed her hands to stop her. The Appeal Court judge ruled that both of these were a crime in the UK and the first would count as rape.

So that's accusations of sex offences, one of which employed some physical force, if not some level of violence. And therefore should be treated as a priority.

Also, the police have the right to assume he's a flight-risk, given that he's run away from one country, and broken bail to avoid facing these charges. He is of course innocent, until proven guilty. And given the nature of the allegations, I don't see how they're ever going to prove it, even if he is guilty.

Finally, it's a high profile case. Those tend to get prioritised as well.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

Yo! Sparty... not quite... Re: Obligation to arrest.

I think you're missing a very important legal point.

In the UK, legally there are two issues. 1) The EAW warrant and 2) Jumping Bail and creating an international incident while on Britain's watch.

First the legal issue is that Sweden issued an EAW and Britain was obligated to honor it. So they did by arresting Assange. They they afforded Assange his day in court by allowing him to appeal the EAW. This is a very important point. Assange was never denied his rights in the UK.

Then there is now the legal issue of Assange jumping bail and hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy.

The ramifications of Assange being allowed to jump bail and flee Britain is a very big deal since it would mean that they didn't honor their obligations under the EAW.

Much more important that you portray and no, the actual charges of the EAW are no longer relevant once the EAW was judged to be valid.

And yes, its that simple.

[mad_dr]

Re: Obligation to arrest.

Putting the moral questions around Assange's specific situation to one side for a moment, that does make you think though; if the Swedes want Assange but he's holed up in a building in London, shouldn't the Swedish police force (who, I know, don't have jurisdiction in the UK) be offered the option by Hague, to be seconded to London, drafted into the Met for an indeterminate period and given the chance to camp outside the embassy, ready to make an arrest, so that the Met police officers can get back to whatever they'd be doing if Assange hadn't graced the UK with his presence? If we've all signed up to the same EU rules that bound us, should it be so incomprehensible that a temporary partnership could be formed?

Alternatively, the Swedes could offer manpower from their police force to visit the UK to make themselves useful somehow by way of thanks for the doubtless hundreds of thousands of pounds this stalemate is costing?

Would be interesting to know how long the Swedes reckon the UK should fund this operation for and where they think the money should come from to pay for it. If the answers were "as long as it takes" and "from their own taxpayer's pockets", I wonder how reasonable that would be considered by most folks.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Obligation to arrest.

Well Sweden could argue it's our fault, for giving him bail - given that he was a known flight-risk. I suppose we do get £250,000 to soften the blow. They could just give the bail money to the Met.

In the end though, it's what you have police for. To enforce the law. Some bits cost more than others admittedly, but bloke has broken the law (bail jumping) and is accused of breaking the law in Sweden, our courts have ruled - and it's the job of the police to deal with it. We could bill Sweden for the hassle, or even bill Ecuador (if we were feeling grumpy). But in the end we have police to do this job, and it's Assange's fault that we're in this mess, not Sweden's. Should someone get away with rape because it's inconvenient to deal with it?

BTW I'm not assuming guilt, just making a point... He's innocent until proven guilty. He may not even get charged, given how hard this sort of allegation is to prove.

As for Swedish policemen coming over here, that's even more bonkers than the Assange camp claiming that Sweden could carry out their legal process by Skype. Swedish police would have no power of arrest over here, and we can't just induct them into the Met. They'd have to go on some pretty long training courses, so they knew English law. Their system is completely different to ours. Plus there are demonstrations going on outside the embassy, with journos present. Probably a bit of a sensitive area to bung new trainees...

[Psyx]

Re: Obligation to arrest.

"The government and Police have a lot of obligations, including this one - but time and limited resources means they must prioritise"

Correct.

And I would call a high-profile person who has very publicly evaded justice, thumbed his nose at our legal system, abused our hospitality and accused the government of being US lapdogs as a priority. I would call not letting a piss-ant South American country setting an example that they can fuck us around a priority.

I understand that others disagree, but if I were the Home Secretary or whatever, I would want Assange's balls on a plate. NOT because anyone told me to, but because he was being both an insult and an embarrassment. Stepping down now would be even more humiliating.

YMMV, but that's where mine lies.

[Psyx]

Re: Obligation to arrest.

"Question. Is this still Sweden's problem? I suspect they would claim that they had tried everything they were obliged to try, and it was now out of their hands and between Britain and that other Country. Would anybody think that was unreasonable?"

I suspect that the case officer would think "what a arrogant little twat". And go out of his way to make said fugitive's life difficult, rather than giving an easy ride.

[John H Woods]

Re: Obligation to arrest.

My question is who would think it unreasonable for Sweden, in that hypothetical situation, to claim they had tried everything they were obliged to try. Therefore the answer that the case officer would think "what an arrogant little twat" is not really an answer to the question I posed, however accurate it may be as a statement.

I think even if the fugitive were a convicted war criminal, many countries would, when that fugitive entered a foreign embassy and was given refuge, be happy to tell the country that issued the EAW that there was nothing further they could do, and that the issuing country should now take it up with the country to whom the embassy belongs.

Not only would that free up our police and save us money, but it would deprive Assange of the 'oxygen of publicity' as it is unlikely our parochial media would give much of a toss regarding a dispute between Ecuador and Sweden. I can't see that our (UK) reputation would be damaged much by saying this is no longer our problem.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@john Woods. Re: Obligation to arrest.

Reasonable? No, not really when you consider the facts of the case.

First Assange should have been deemed a flight risk and upon losing the third appeal, he should have immediately been remanded in to custody. Note that he fled jurisdiction which caused the need for an EAW in the first place, so it is reasonable to assume that he would do it again.

Also the UK courts afforded Assange bail. Because he was a flight risk, Assange could have been denied bail and we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place.

So you have to ask yourself what sort of obligations does the country of GB have when it comes to having a person jump bail within their own country?

Here's the really sad thing. Instead of being a man, he screwed himself into a worse position.

Jumping bail in the UK means he can be barred from entry in to the UK in the future.

He can be barred entry in to most of the EU because of his actions in both GB and Sweden.

(other countries too for that matter.)

Assange even screwed the pooch back home in Aussie. There were earlier news reports on this... Countries will protect their citizens to a point....

[John H Woods]

Re: @john Woods. Obligation to arrest.

@Ian Michael Gumby

Ian, you reply to my message with a list of things with which I do not necessarily disagree - but I can only assume that it is implicit in your reply that you think other countries *would* think it unreasonable for us to tell the Swedes that it is now pretty much between them and Ecuador.

The Swedes want him, Ecuador has him. OK, we want him for the crime of bail-jumping, but that is surely secondary to Sweden's wanting him on sexual offence charges, or the US wanting him for espionage (if indeed they do).

We have legislation that allows us to enter an Embassy (by suddenly making it a former Embassy) but we could argue we created that legislation for a very specific purpose, and that, unless JA shoots somebody from inside the building, circumstances are now very different.

Of course it can be argued that he should never have been given bail, but that milk is now spilt. What if he had run off to France? Would it be our responsibility to go get him from there, or would it become France's problem? I fully realise that the Ecuador embassy is still UK soil, but I am hypothesizing a situation where it becomes principally the problem of other countries and I want to see at which point, if any, you will agree with me.

So, yet again, I ask which countries do you think would object to us telling the Swedes that it is now between them and Ecuador? And how reasonable would those objections be? Once more I should emphasize that I don't care how much of a tosser JA is, or how serious the alleged offences are. What I want is a discussion about which countries would think, "hold on, you have special circumstances legislation to enter an Embassy, why don't you use them" rather than "OK, we understand you are respecting the Vienna convention, we'll have to deal with it ourselves".

If we can say it is somebody else's problem, we simultaneously deny JA media attention; free up our police; and refrain from doing anything that other countries could (mis)interpret as hostile. The downside is just that people might say, "wow the UK is more relaxed about bail jumping than we thought" I honestly can't see any bigger downside than that - can you enlighten me?

[theModge]

I see a need for a lot of crates labelled "Not Julian at all"

Smuggle them out one at a time, with great care. After the 23rd crate full of rats the police should be bored enough to quit searching them. Plus they can use the first couple to kick up a massive legal fuss and prevent them searching any more....

[Steve Knox]

Re: I see a need for a lot of crates labelled "Not Julian at all"

After the 23rd crate full of rats ...

Assumes that the Ecuadorian Embassy is currently plagued with 23 human-sized crates' worth of rats...

[Steven Roper]

Re: I see a need for a lot of crates labelled "Not Julian at all"

This is London you're talking about. They'd have no problem finding that many rats if they needed them!

1984 because, you know, London and rats and all...

[Tim Parker]

Re: I see a need for a lot of crates labelled "Not Julian at all"

"Assumes that the Ecuadorian Embassy is currently plagued with 23 human-sized crates' worth of rats..."

Indeed, indeed, good point.

That place would of course be the House of Commons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just take the lad and put him on a plane

We don't need blow-by-blow reporting. Just go to the embassy, grab him and ship him off. He is a fugative and thus not entitled to immunity nor asylum, period.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

.. the best strategy is to leave well alone.

You see, the people with the biggest problem are those inside the embassy. By stirring things up you distract them, instead you need to leave them stew.

It is taken as a gross understatement that Assange is not exactly easy to live with. Couple that with a nation that isn't exactly hot on human rights, and you'll find that bomb and source of ignition are already in the same place. All it needs is some time. Assange is well capable of creating his own problems there too, at which point he may actually come out and ask for protection from Ecuador..

Patience, just patience. No need for anything else. No threats, no stupid press statements - just let it stew. It is really not going to take a year, but you can help the process along by laughing at the Ecuadorians for having to put up with Assange. I pity them greatly :).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

It would certainly spice things up if Wikileaks published something the Ecuadorian government wished to keep secret

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

Apparently he's got Internet access. So they've put him on their network. So nothing could go wrong there then...

Perhaps a straw poll is in order, amongst our sysadmins who comment here?

How happy would you be to give Julian Assange access to your precious network?

On a grading of 1-10, how high would you rate him as a security risk to your data?

[Thorne]

Re: There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

Personally I'd get MI6 to anonymously donate a heap of Ecuadorian secrets to Wikileaks and see if Julian publishes them. Now that would be the funnist way to see him get booted out.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@Thorne Re: There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

One small hitch...

Julian isn't a dolt and wouldn't publish them even if they were true.

He knows which side his bread is buttered on...

Nice idea though.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: @Thorne There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

I don't know about that. Assange certainly isn't stupid. But he also seems to fall out with lots of people he works closely with. It's clearly not in his self-interest to annoy Ecuador, while they're protecting him. But that could come down to the amount of idealism vs cynicism in his personality, plus how low his boredom threshold is, and how well he can keep his temper, in what must be a stressful situation. Many of the journalists who've worked with him describe him as erratic, and as being quick to anger, even if he's often just as quick to go back to being reasonable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Thorne There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

Julian isn't a dolt and wouldn't publish them even if they were true.

He knows which side his bread is buttered on...

Ah, but that would create interesting questions about the integrity of Wikileaks, no? All of a sudden they set themselves up as censors - it's perfectly OK to dump every secret ever received from the US, but Ecuador, that's such a nice country, we couldn't possibly talk about them..

This is what I see as a very worrying conundrum for Wikileaks, one they wouldn't have if it wasn't for Assange.

If any intelligence agency wanted to do sometuing intelligent (unusual, I know, but let's assume that is possible), I would do exactly that: leak Ecuadorian docs to WL and leak them simultaneously to newspapers so they would know WL received them. At that point WL as well as Assange(tm) would be in a no-win situation. Publish and JA might be shown the door with the help of a boot, do not publish and forever have questions about WL's integrity.

It would be clearly require a decision about what is more important, Assange or Wikileaks, and either choice means a loss (well - ish, I don't care for either).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Thorne There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

>This is what I see as a very worrying conundrum for Wikileaks

You know for a half a mo back there I thought you said 'very worrying condom for wikileaks'.

[S4qFBxkFFg]

Re: There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

Or just maybe the embassy sent an intern down to Carphone Warehouse to buy a dongle?

[Vic]

Re: There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

> he's got Internet access. So they've put him on their network.

That presumes that they only have one network.

> How happy would you be to give Julian Assange access to your precious network?

My precious network? He wouldn't get on there.

But I'd give him access to one of my filtered networks. That would give him Internet access with no opportunity to look at any of my stuff.

> On a grading of 1-10, how high would you rate him as a security risk to your data?

0. Yes, I'm aware that's less than your minimum.

Vic.

[Psyx]

Re: There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

"It would certainly spice things up if Wikileaks published something the Ecuadorian government wished to keep secret"

You don't think Ecuador would be doing this without Asshatange having those grumble flicks of their President and a Llama, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: There is absolutely no need to storm the embassy..

> No threats, no stupid press statements - just let it stew.

The problem is that this is not up to the government, it is up to the press.

The press knew Hague had a meeting with the vice president of Ecuador and asked him about it. Had he refused to comment then press speculation would have gone wild, so he answered their questions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you are Julian, borrow my mask...

It may assist you in your escape

[I ain't Spartacus]

We're not going to storm the embassy. That would be silly.

What we might do, is to throw all Ecuador's diplomats out of the country, for actions not compatible with their diplomatic status. Which, in this case, wouldn't be a euphemism for spying, but would be for flouting UK laws. Once they're gone, we can wander in with no problems.

I'm sure we don't really want to do that. It's very much the nuclear option. Hence trying to make a deal. But the British government is subject to our laws. If Sweden were to be awkward, they could put pressure on us by trying to get the courts to hurry the government up. I doubt they will though.

In the end everyone will probably come to a quiet arrangement. We don't recognise diplomatic asylum, so it would be illegal for us to let Assange go to Ecuador. Sweden probably don't want any more fuss. And Ecuador will probably want a bit more room back in their embassy. And less frosty relations with the Foreign Office. They'll get the stale Ferrero Rocher, and least comfortable seats, at the ambassador's receptions...

If they do sneak Assange out, it'll be them in the wrong diplomatically. Good PR for the elections at home admittedly... But they'll have breached the Vienna convention they've been so loudly preaching to us about. And they'll have stuck two fingers up to an EU treaty and two EU governments. It's possible the EU might even take collective action. Doubt it though...

Some interesting opinions here, from an ex-ambassador: link

Personally, I think Correa has milked it for all the political capital he can get cheaply. Is he going to be willing to pay the diplomatic cost of turning thus into a never-ending soap opera? The FCO were already pursuing face-saving options for Ecuador to give Assange up. If things go on too long, a climb-down will look even sillier.

[Vic]

> But the British government is subject to our laws.

Is it aware of this?

Vic.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Yes. Every time it loses a court case, whines about it a bit, but then complies anyway.

[Local Group]

"If things go on too long, a climb-down will look even sillier."

And this is bad because?

.

<"If they do sneak Assange out, it'll be them in the wrong diplomatically."

If they do sneak Assange out, why would they tell anyone for a couple of years? They'd build a replication of Assange's Knightsbridge bedroom/office, in Quito where JA could harangue TPTB while washing down some bubble and squeak a couple bottles of Old Hooky. Everyone would think he was still near the Prime Meridian. If he got out of the Embassy without being seen, no one's going to know he's flown the coop until they're told.

<"In the end everyone will probably come to a quiet arrangement."

A 'quiet arrangement'. When you think of one be sure and let us know what it is.

Assange's lawyer is working overtime to discredit the accusations of the two victims and the press outside of Sweden is ignoring it. When he's successful he goes back to court where they quash the extradition order. Because England's case was based on an invalid extradition order, his bail skip and bail forfeit are now reopened by the English lawyers.

Hague blames the whole mess on Stockholm and England gets off the hooky.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: "If things go on too long, a climb-down will look even sillier."

"....Because England's case was based on an invalid extradition order, his bail skip and bail forfeit are now reopened by the English lawyers....." Wrong! The skipping of bail is an independent offence now, regardless of what happens in Sweden. The judge can also throw a contempt charge at him if so desired. Even if A$$nut manages to slip out of the embassy and makes it to Ecuador, he is now a fugitive in all parts of Europe that enact EAWs.

[Local Group]

Re: "If things go on too long, a climb-down will look even sillier."

"In law, a motion to set aside judgment is an application to overturn or set aside a court's judgment, verdict or other final ruling in a case. Such a motion is proposed by a party who is dissatisfied with the end result of a case. Motions may be made at any time after entry of judgment, and in some circumstances years after the case has been closed by the courts. Generally the motion cannot be based on grounds which were previously considered when deciding a motion for new trial or on an appeal of the judgment, thus the motion can only be granted in unusual circumstances, such as when the judgment was procured by fraud which could not have been discovered at the time of the trial, or if the court entering the judgment lacked the jurisdiction to do so."

So it goes from district court, to circuit (appeals), to supreme court (highest). The supreme court may be overruled by a change of the law by the legislature, but any dismissal granted Assage would be grandfathered in. The courts, btw, will make their decisions with an eye as to what's best for England. And why would England want to appear vindictive about his bail jump, if Assange's lawyer found fraud on the part the victims/complainants (my hypothetical)?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "If things go on too long, a climb-down will look even sillier."

>England's case was based on an invalid extradition order

That would be "Sweden's case" asshat, but thx for playing.

[Local Group]

Re: Okay, I erred. (BFD)

But now Assange, granted asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy, is relaxing while you are forced to take several sitz baths a day after your uncontrollable anger at him reached critical mass, and your hemorrhoids melted down into a Chernobyl of painful itching.

Stop posting as Cowardly Liar and let us see your mistakes.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

Re: "If things go on too long, a climb-down will look even sillier."

You wrote:

Assange's lawyer is working overtime to discredit the accusations of the two victims and the press outside of Sweden is ignoring it. When he's successful he goes back to court where they quash the extradition order. Because England's case was based on an invalid extradition order, his bail skip and bail forfeit are now reopened by the English lawyers.

-=-

I guess you don't know much about the law.

Let me spell it out to you...

1) The appeals made by Assange failed an the EAW was judged valid.

2) As far as the UK is concerned the facts as presented by the Swedish prosecutor are taken at face value to be true.

3) As far as the UK court is concerned, assuming the facts as true, do they support the charges made in the EAW? And in the appeals hearing, it was judged that they did.

4) The EAW, now judged to be valid means that Assange can go back to Sweden to face his accusers. There, the Swedish Prosecutor will have to make her case.

There is no reopening anything in the UK. Assange lost the appeals and then ran away to hide.

The whole US thing is a smoke screen. The US has years to charge him as they continue to investigate the theft.

Assuming that Assange goes to Sweden, is found guilty, does jail time, the US could charge him and make an extradition request. Even if the Swedes don't extradite him, the US will eventually get him. After all, he will leave Sweden and head back to Australia...

[Local Group]

Re: "If things go on too long, a climb-down will look even sillier."

1) The appeals made by Assange failed an the EAW was judged valid. That is true.

2) As far as the UK is concerned the facts as presented by the Swedish prosecutor are taken at face value to be true. That is true.

3) As far as the UK court is concerned, assuming the facts as true, do they support the charges made in the EAW? And in the appeals hearing, it was judged that they did. True.

4) The EAW, now judged to be valid means that Assange can go back to Sweden to face his accusers. There, the Swedish Prosecutor will have to make her case. True.

However, you neglected my hypothetical:

Assange's Swedish lawyer uncovers enough evidence of 'false accusation' to deny the probable cause the prosecutor argued in the Swedish Court. Thereby the Swedish Court withdraws its order of extradition and the EAW, which were issued based on a warrant of the Swedish Court.

When England gets notification from Sweden that the Swedish extradition order has been stayed, it ceases to persue Assange for anything except jumping bail in England on an order to be extradited to Sweden which order has just been stayed.

Assange's English lawyers go back to the English Court and asks that court to either dismiss the charge of bail jumping or reduce the penalty to forfeiting the bail money, with or without an additional fine. The Justices there, remembering something in public school about "a pound of flesh," dismiss the charges for Julian Assange.

"He who leaks and runs away, lives to leak another day."

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: "If things go on too long, a climb-down will look even sillier."

"....However, you neglected my hypothetical:...." Well, probably because - unlike you - he was keeping at least one foot in reality.

"....Assange's Swedish lawyer uncovers enough evidence of 'false accusation'...." Like what evidence? At the moment it is St Jules' version versus two ladies with similar stories. Trying to smear them in court would not be a good idea as it opens up the ability for the prosecutor to delve into A$$nut's past. I wonder how many other groupies are out there thinking "Hey, he did that to me too!" Let alone his previous criminal record, his bizarre upbringing, and his financial shenanigans and falling out with the media. And then you completely ignore the fact that A$$nut's lawyers have to persuade Ny to drop the case, and she is not some love-struck A$$nut groupie. Dream on!

A$$nut will stay at the Ecuadorean embassy for now, appearing regularly on the balcony to spout more male bovine manure for what will rapidly dwindle down to a crowd of hard-core faithful. What has made that almost a certainty was the US giving political asylum to Emilio Palacio (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19431682). When A$$nut finally gets bored or Correa gets the boot and the replacing Ecuadorean government decide A$$nut has overstayed his welcome, then A$$nut will got o Sweden, stand trial and probably go to prison. When he gets out, the US will be waiting and will extradite him to stand trial for espionage, and he will probably end up spending an awful lot more time in prison.

He who leaks illegally for personal gain will go to prison.

[Local Group]

Re: Not so fast, pal.

"Like what evidence?" . Maybe a prior conviction for 'felony impersonation of a volunteer,'

"I wonder how many other groupies are out there thinking 'Hey, he did that to me too!'" . What would that be? Breach of Condom? You have your feet in Never Never Land when you dream up hypotheticals like that. I knew I'd seen you someplace before.

"A$$nut's lawyers have to persuade Ny to drop the case," . There are wheels within wheels. Guess which one approves dropping it: Marianne Ny, Beatrice Ask, or Fredrik Reinfeldt? (Hint: the decision is above Ny's pay grade.)

"When A$$nut finally gets bored" . 'Oh, I'm so bored I think I'll go to Camp Torquemada in the States, have a couple of years getting water boarded, a couple of years in solitary confinement and then go to maximum security prison where my job will be picking up soap in the shower.' NOT

"Correa gets the boot" . His current term ends 10 August 2013, which could be extended by reelection until 2017. Hey, that's about the same time the anti-missile defense shield becomes operational and the US and it's midget allies RULE THE WORLD. Yeah!

[vic 4]

I say we tell the Ecuadorans they can take him, get the SAS to sneak in replace him with WIlliam Hague after plastic surgery to look like assange, send the real assange back to sweden with instructions if they don't want him at all to send him to Ecuador claiming a mix up and baggage handling and then bundle hague to the US to do what they want with him, preferably Guatemala Bay.

Fingers crossed we'll never hear anything from either of them ever again.

Seriously, "refused to rule out storming the Ecuadorian embassy", to paraphrase Judge Koh, has William Hague been smoking crack? Fair enough keep an officer outside and put him on a no fly list, but storm an embassy for him, get a grip on reality and put things into perspective. What about all the obligations the police have to appending your average criminal or the obligations the government has to running country rather than ruining it.

[Kharkov]

A No-Fly List?

put him on a no fly list

I'm not sure but I don't think that'd work. The last time I came through Customs, some guy looked at my passport & waved me through. No scanning, fingerprinting or anything. If Julian dyes his hair & takes off his glasses, he's got a good chance of making it through an airport if he times it so the Customs guy is about 3/4's of the way through his shift.

Remember, Kim Philby's name was supposed to be on a piece of paper in Customs so he could be arrested if he ever returned to the country. Like that would have worked...

[I ain't Spartacus]

Could we suck him out of the embassy window, using a giant vacuum cleaner, without breaching diplomatic immunity?

Or is that a bit too Wallace & Gromit?

Talking of which, that William Hague? Yorkshire accent, bald, never seen him and Wallace in the same room have you? The people should be told!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oy!

As an enginneer i resent that. Wallace is a hero among engineering Geeks, whereas, William Hague is an annoying public school tosser who probably couldnt throw together a simple Oscilator if his life depended on it!

[Local Group]

we're looking for an amicable solution

England === hand him over

Ecuador === let him go

amicable solution == penalty shootout

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: we're looking for an amicable solution

rock-paper-scissors!

[bogwart]

Embassy invasion

If the Mekon wants so badly to kiss american hindquarters he should go and settle there permanently, instead of following them in destroying international Conventions which have lasted a hell of a lot longer than he has been around. British embassies worldwide will be the losers here, along with any shreds of respect we still get from the rest of the world. All so a bunch of spiteful hippos can throw Assange in a federal supermax for the rest of his life, assuming he lives long enough to stand trial.

[Jerome Fryer]

Amazing how stupid governments are

First off, let's try a thought experiment.

Imagine that Wikileaks had disclosed information that embarrassed Ecuador, and they wanted to get their mits on JA for "evil-doing". JA visits a country with a solid past history of "renditioning" people that Ecuador wants to lay hands on, and a legal complaint emerges that would involve a moderate fine and a mandatory STD test should he be found guilty -- let's assume that Sweden is a stooge of Ecuador. The rest plays out pretty much as before, right up until JA takes refuge in the US embassy. The UK government are still obligated to arrest JA even if it means violating the US embassy, right?

The really mind-boggling fact about this fiasco is the self-harm all of these governments are performing. Wikileaks publishes an embarrassing look behind the curtain at the type of nonsense that we all know goes on. Well, that's hardly crippling as very few of the public are unaware of the true nature of our beloved governments. But wait: now the US government decides that a crusade of vengeance against one individual is not only lawful and appropriate, but also decides that pursuing this course in the most damaging way possible is a smart move -- and the UK, Sweden and Australia are all equally happy to play this game. Wikileaks gives the public a glimpse behind the curtain, so the embarrassed parties lose it and tear some gaping holes in that curtain in a fit of pique.

I guess my real question is: how could such geniuses have ever lost control of those cables in the first place?

[Ian Michael Gumby]

Re: Amazing how stupid governments are

"I guess my real question is: how could such geniuses have ever lost control of those cables in the first place?"

Simple, Assange found a patsy in Manning who had enough security clearance to be able to break in.

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange will be returned to Sweden for trial

It's just a matter of time. Ecuador has everything to lose and nothing to gain by sheltering an international fugitive, so they made a huge mistake.

[Thorne]

Re: Assange will be returned to Sweden for trial

The moment the UK threatened to storm the embassy, they couldn't hand him over without appearing weak and no government wants to appear weak to their own people and the world as a whole.

The UK was stupid to make the threat because it guarenteed Assange's asylum. In fact the UK was stupid all the way along. Once he fled to the embassy I'd of told Sweden "Sorry take it up with Eucador" and left it at that. It's not the UK's fight so let him be someone else's problem. The hundred of police wasted guarding the embassy plus the UK government now appearing weak and stupid all for one man who couldn't keep it in his pants.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Assange will be returned to Sweden for trial

"The moment the UK threatened to storm the embassy, they couldn't hand him over without appearing weak and no government wants to appear weak to their own people and the world as a whole."

Erm, you do realise that's total bollocks don't you?

Firstly the UK government had carefully made no public statements about the matter. Secondly they were trying to resolve it by negotiation, with face-saving statements made for public consumption in Ecuador. Thirdly if they did make a threat to enter the embassy, it was private, so there was nothing to make Ecuador look weak - had they not chosen to go public themselves.

Try this interesting article on what might have gone wrong, from an ex-ambassador in the Telegraph: Torygraph link

The same chap has an interesting article on the situation here: linky

Note: If you're pro-Assange, please ignore the fact that he's very sniffy about him (what do you expect from an ex-professional diplomat?), and have a look at his comments on the diplomatic situation itself, which are interesting.

This is a self-created problem for Ecuador. They let Assange in, and they went public. Charles Crawford makes an argument from negotiation theory that it's to force us to give something even juicier to them to get the whole thing to go away. Because they've deliberately narrowed their own options, making it harder for themselves to back down, and therefore worthy of a higher price from us. Or it could just be everyone over-played their hands, and now we're in a diplomatic mess...

[Psyx]

Re: Assange will be returned to Sweden for trial

"The moment the UK threatened to storm the embassy,"

They didn't though. That's just the way Ecuador and Assange spun it.

That's probably half the reason why HM Gov are so pissed off about it. I know I would be.

Take a look what was *actually* written.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ecuador has everything to lose"

Please elaborate

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Assange will be returned to Sweden for trial

But.. he's not an international fugitive. He is wanted for breaching his bail in the UK.

[Anonymous Coward]

We're legally bound to arrest Mr Assange

No doubt they are but they are also legally bound to arrest a hell of a lot of others who they probably know the whereabouts of yet they don't seem to be worried about them let alone spending a reported 50,000GBP each a week in an attempt to do anything about them.

In a country where some health care treatment is denied because it is considered the cost outweighs the benefits or just that the health authority has run out of money after refurbishing the doctor's offices it is criminal that so much is being spent on one case where numerous others could be closed for less.

[Anonymous Coward]

Send a few New Zealand Police over, they're at a bit of a loose end since rounding up Fat Bastard on behalf of the 'mirkins, and are just itching to use the (1) black helicopter again.

[Alpha Tony]

Bored with this now

Will somebody please explain to me how it would be easier for the US to extradite him from Sweden than from the UK? We routinely black bag and ship our own citizens off to "The land of the free (TM)" - pretty much all they have to do it ask.

As I understand things, if we have extradited him to Sweden to face these charges and the US subsequently wanted to arrest him they would have to get approval from both Sweden and the UK, meaning he is actually safer from US prosecution if he goes.

That leads me to believe that there are actually two genuine reasons for him not to want to go:

1) He genuinely believes he may be convicted.

2) He doesnt want to stop being the centre of attention.

I was somewhat sympathetic initially, but the guy is just a dick and while I don't think he should be shipped off to gitmo, I'm also sick of seeing him on my TV and I am increasingly of the opinion that he is just an attention whore.

[SJRulez]

Re: Bored with this now

"the US subsequently wanted to arrest him they would have to get approval from both Sweden and the UK, "

As the most recent probe into the CIA has found they just arrest people anyway without charge and interrogate them when they feel like it, they also have a proven track record on grabbing people, flying them all over the world and then finally getting them to the US claiming not to know where the plane actually picked them up.

[Charles 9]

Re: Bored with this now

IOW, Asaange is claiming that Sweden would increase his risk of Extraordinary Rendition. But hasn't anyone thought that the country from which they occur would object most egregiously to this breach of their sovereignty? This isn't a tinpot dictator's domain we're talking about here.

[SJRulez]

Re: Bored with this now

Not so far, its been shown that france, spain, germany, turkey, arab nations and the list goes on have all cooperated with the renditions whether directly by actually dumping someone on the Americans door step or allowing their somewhat unusual flights to use their territories.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Bored with this now

If what you're saying is true, that there is no more prospect of him being extradited to the US from Sweden than from the UK.... then all Sweden needs to do is give an assurance that he won't be.

Assange then has no conspiracy excuse to hide behind, the Ecuadorians have a face-saving reason to boot him out, the Swedes get to put him on trial for having two one night stands without telling each about the other one, and the UK can reassign a few dozen plod to catching criminals.

The only flaw in this nice theory is that for some reason, Sweden seems unwilling to give such assurances.

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Bored with this now

Wait, so your argument is that alleged criminals should be able to place arbitrary, illegal and unenforceable demands on the jurisdiction that wants to try them for a crime, and you're fine with this?

Do everyone a favour, and read into ministerstyre (and Swedish criminal law in general) before piping up again, will you?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most out-of-control cockblocking incident I've ever heard of :P

[Anonymous Coward]

So if some tinpot country decided

So if some tinpit country [1] decided that there was a case to answer for putting Blair before the courts for war crimes, Her Majesty's government would support extraditing Blair, just as HMG support extraditing Assange?

[1] Not suggesting that Ecuador is tinpot, quite the reverse. But the law is the law, and applies equally to all countries, and to all individuals. We are all equal before the law, right?

[Tom 38]

Re: So if some tinpot country decided

Assange supporters just wilfully ignore the facts. The government is constrained to extradite him based upon the court rulings. What the government wants is neither here nor there; the highest courts in the land (and Europe) have ruled that he must be extradited, and in this country we follow the rule of law.

If the courts ruled that Blair must be extradited to your hypothetical country, the government would be similarly obliged.

Assange is a low life who enjoyed all the protections and benefits of our legal system, and then pissed all over it. Once he's done with in Sweden, we should get him back so he can do some porridge here too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So if some tinpot country decided

> Once he's done with in Sweden, we should get him back so he can do some porridge here too.

Bubba's porridge?

[A J Stiles]

Re: So if some tinpot country decided

"Bubba's porridge?"

Now who's playing rape apologist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Assange supporters just wilfully ignore the facts." (Tom 38)

On what factual evidence do you conclude that AC 08:36 is an Assange supporter? I hope the Swedes have got a better class of evidence for their allegations than you have for yours.

"If the courts ruled that Blair must be extradited to your hypothetical country, the government would be similarly obliged"

Ha ha ha. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. But just in case reality shows you are right (which seems almost infinitely improbable), Blair's already lined up plenty of alternative residences in safe states and plenty of friends in high places too. Who needs the law when you've got friends in high places?

"Once Assange is done with in Sweden, we should get him back so he can do some porridge here too."

OK, your position is perfectly clear now.

Never mind due process, Assange is a very naughty boy (says you) and he must be punished for something, who cares what the crime was, or what the punishment is to be.

Well actually lots of folk feel the same way about Blair, and with rather more reason for doing so.

But we are all equal before the law, and due process must be followed, mustn't it.

[NB justice .ne. law]

[Tom 38]

Re: "Assange supporters just wilfully ignore the facts." (Tom 38)

"Once Assange is done with in Sweden, we should get him back so he can do some porridge here too."

OK, your position is perfectly clear now.

Never mind due process, Assange is a very naughty boy (says you) and he must be punished for something, who cares what the crime was, or what the punishment is to be.

I'm sorry, are you arguing that Assange has not breached his bail? He's legally fought this case as far as he can, and then absconded from bail. That is a criminal offence in the UK, is anyone doubting that he is guilty of that?

I have no clue to the veracity of the Swedish complaints against him, which is why I said "Once Assange is done in Sweden" - charged, not charged, guilty, not guilty - he should come back here to serve a sentence for absconding from bail. Better still would be deporting him to Australia to serve any sentence, I believe we've got form for that.

Well actually lots of folk feel the same way about Blair, and with rather more reason for doing so.

Yes, I'm one of them. I was before I'd even heard of Assange, or been illuminated by the light of his revelation. Believing Blair to be a war criminal and Assange to be a paranoid nut job who shouldn't remain in this country are not mutually opposing viewpoints.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Blair .. Assange .. nut job " (Tom 38)

Breaching bail, and war crimes, are criminal offences. Being a nut job isn't necessarily a criminal offence in the UK (not yet, anyway). Try not to confuse the two (I realise many people are finding it difficult).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Blair .. Assange .. nut job " (Tom 38)

Breaching bail is a criminal offence, we have enough criminals here without re-importing them from Australia (which I thought was the point of creating Australia).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Assange supporters just wilfully ignore the facts." (Tom 38)

'Believing Blair to be a war criminal and Assange to be a paranoid nut job who shouldn't remain in this country are not mutually opposing viewpoints.'

In my dreams I arrest Blair, but I wake up realising I'd probably kill the bastard rather than take him to the Hague. Really I would.

[Levente Szileszky]

Re: So if some tinpot country decided

No, we are the ones who are invoking THE FACT THAT the UK was PROTECTING AUGUSTO PINOCHET, a documented DICTATOR, wanted for TRIAL for EN MASSE MURDER, TORTURE et cetera...

...y'know, a lot more serious offenses than supposed "coercion".

Your turn, shill.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: So if some tinpot country decided

"No, we are the ones who are invoking THE FACT THAT the UK was PROTECTING AUGUSTO PINOCHET...." Usual frothing failure. Pinochet was in the UK for surgery when he was arrested by the British Police on the Spanish warrant. The case was appealed over sixteen months and went right to the House of Lords (which was then the highest court). In that court, Pinochet's appeal of diplomatic immunity was rejected, but the Law Lords had to admit their remit only extended back to 1988 under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which invalidated the majority of the charges against Pinochet stated in the Spanish warrant. BUT, the remaining charges were upheld, meaning the extradition to Spain could go ahead. Then Pinochet's bad health led to Home Secretary Jack Straw (Labour, not a Conservative) to release Pinochet to return to Chile. In short, Pinochet went through the same legal wrangling that St Jules did, only he "got off" due to his ill health. In fact, A$$nut has had more legal options and has lost at every stage, and can't use the excuse of ill health.

[Local G]

Re: I didn't know that Jack Straw was an MD.

I wonder if he gave Pinochet a digital rectal examination before he released him.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: I didn't know that Jack Straw was an MD.

Don't be silly, Straw had Pinochet undergo tests by medical experts and then acted on teh results of those tests.

[Local G]

Re: I didn't know that Jack Straw was an MD.

Now you're absolutely sure that FOP (friends of Pinochet) didn't, ahem, pay agreeable doctors (wink wink) for certain "test results" and a helpful prognosis? It happens here in America a lot.

Naturally, I defer to your greater knowledge of English corruption.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: So if some tinpot country decided

"So if some tinpit country [1] decided that there was a case to answer for putting Blair before the courts for war crimes, Her Majesty's government would support extraditing Blair, just as HMG support extraditing Assange?"

There's a technical difference. In a standard extradition treaty, there's a political element. In our case the Home Secretary has to sign off on the extradition, and can therefore refuse to do so for whatever reasons of public policy, justice, mercy or political convenience.

This isn't true for that shitty US extradition treaty that Blair stupidly signed, idiotically thinking the US would reciprocate. In that case there's no political block.

However the European Arrest Warrant isn't really a normal extradition treaty. It uses some of the same rules, and statutory underpinnings, but it was designed to be as much like a national arrest warrant as possible. So there is no leeway written in for political or judicial control. As the courts have proved, they can stick their oar in anyway, but now they've ruled it's legal, so the precedent is now set. The idea is supposed to be that an EU prosecutor/magistrate or court can serve an arrest warrant, for a limited range of offences, on anyone in any EU country. That arrest warrant should then be dealt with as if it was issued nationally, with certain safeguards.

It's a rubbish idea, in my opinion. As it assumes all EU legal systems are equal, and takes away our government's power to protect it's own citizens (one of a government's primary jobs). But that's the hubris of the EU system for you, dreaming of being a viable state, and we signed up to it, so we're stuck with it.

[MrHorizontal]

4 Options

A distinctly un-British affair this, who historically make it other people's problems.

Option 1: UK politefully requests that Sweden promises not to re-extradite Assange to US. Assange goes to Sweden for trial, problem diverted to Sweden (who want that problem), and we move on. Yes it'd be an extraordinary request, but isn't that exactly what diplomatic negotiations are about?

Option 2: Ecuador gives Assange diplomatic status, putting UK into legal quagmire as they have Vienna Treaty obligations and the Yvonne Fletcher act at odds (that 1987 act though is actually illegal and should be repealed). If Assange is arrested with diplomatic immunity, UK is in contravention of International law. If UK doesn't arrest Assange, problem diverted to Sweden, and we move on.

Option 3: Hague comes and out and say exactly why he is on a personal crusade against Assange. Details spill out that the US is indeed on a witch hunt, and is in fact paying for the Police overtime. Problem diverted to US, and we move on.

Option 4: Hague storms the embassy, and loses diplomatic status of all British diplomats the world over. We move on, but problem is brought squarely on Hague's shoulders with a newly impotent FCO (which I still call Foreign and Colonial Office).

Regardless of which option, we as the British have to ask this stooge at the head of the FCO: What the hell are you fighting for with all this bluster? IT IS NOT BRITAIN'S PROBLEM!

[Tom 38]

Re: 4 Options

You do realise that option 1 already exists. Both the UK and Sweden cannot allow him to be extradited to a country where he may stand trial for capital offences.

Option 2 is impossible; Ecuador cannot 'give' people diplomatic status in this country; they can request to the Foreign Office to give Assange diplomatic status, highly unlikely to be granted.

Option 3 is you following Assange on his paranoia trips - Hague is constrained by the actions of the court to pursue this.

Option 4 is you having a little lefty daydream.

[JC_]

@Tom 38

Nice post, but as a lefty I have to politely disagree with your Option 4! According to that other wiki-something site, Assange has said:

"It’s not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I’ve learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism."

It's the slashdot-demographic that's sees Assange as their personal Jesus; y'know, the same kind of people who want all information to be free and also don't know how to treat females...

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: 4 Options

MrHorizontal,

There's a bit of a problem.

Your Option 1 is illegal. We could offer those assurances, certainly. But it would be a lie. The UK and Swedish governments can't tell the UK courts how to rule on a future case. So we could make the promise while crossing our fingers behind our backs. But it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

As for your Option 2 - you don't understand how diplomacy works. You only get the immunity after you ask for it, and the receiving country accepts it. We wouldn't. So no dice.

Your options 3 and 4 are just silly. It's our problem. He's in our country, having flouted the rules of our courts. He, and the Ecuadorian government, have stuck 2 fingers up at our legals system, and this sets a bad precedent that we don't want. As bad a precedent as storming the embassy would make. Because this sort of case buggers up the job of embassies, which is to maintain quiet communications channels between governments. Which is why we do our best not to get fugitives inside our embassies abroad. Because it pisses off the local government, and damages the diplomatic channels that make the world a safer place.

We therefore don't want to be seen to accept the situation, because our criminals might try the same trick here, or foreign criminals and genuine asylum seekers might use our embassies in the same way.

[SJRulez]

Two birds with one stone

We offer the EU Courts and Sweden a deal, lets us extradite that no good preacher hasmsa whatever his name is and stop blocking any of our future extraditions, once that's done we'll hand over Assange.

[Anonymous Coward]

Libyan Embassy

There's a slight difference, in that someone from within the embassy was firing outside the embassy.

That is, it was a cross-border attack, and so an act of war.

Assange is basically abroad already, he's now Ecuador's problem and it's best to let them suffer the grubby little pervert.

He should be put on a plane to Ecuador and told not to come back.

[Charles 9]

Re: Libyan Embassy

Except that the Ecuadorian Embassy is, legally, still British soil. There is no transfer of sovereignty involved in the establishment of embassies. The Libyan incident involved Libyan nationals killing a British officer of the law (which can be considered an attack on British authority and maybe even the Crown) and harboring said killer. This gave the government the moral justification to storm the Libyan embassy. They were still storming British soil, but they suspended an agreement that at the point was being turned against the Crown.

In this current scenario, the only thing that's keeping the British from going after Assange is the agreement that what goes on in the Ecuadorian Embassy is not their affair. Thing is, by doing this, they've come between themselves and the EU (probably intentionally, if you hear Ecuador's president put it). Thing is, everything outside that embassy is within London and British jurisdiction. There are few ways in and out, all of which are being monitored. Aircraft can't approach because it's British airspace, and they're not close enough to the Thames IIRC to attempt a water escape. As for smuggling, that note already makes clear they're ready for that angle as well. About the only angle that would be difficult to cover would be attempting a multi-doppleganger ploy in the middle of the night.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Libyan Embassy

I think the combined efforts of Arsene Lupin and Hugh (Bulldog) Drummond might be hard pressed to get him outside and on the way to Ecuador.

(Note to self - reading too many free epubs off Gutenberg)

[Psyx]

Re: Libyan Embassy

Assange isn't abroad.

The Embassy is UK soil. That's the law. That always has been the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Libyan Embassy

But if they do that he'ļl get banged senseless by South American political groupies this time. Still, nice way to go :P

[Anonymous Coward]

As bad as Assclowne's actions may or may not have been

it's good fun seeing the size of Ecuador's trollface.

[Anonymous Coward]

What an intelligent remark!

NOT

[Matt Bryant]

Re: What an intelligent remark!

Sorry, but there are so many unintelligent remarks on this thread, could you please be more specific as to which bit of silliness you refer?

[Local G]

Re: What an intelligent remark!

"As bad as Assclowne's actions may or may not have been

it's good fun seeing the size of Ecuador's trollface."

It didn't seem too swift when I first read it, but after a couple of days, it's not so bad.

Myself, I have fun looking at the size of Holland's dykes. You?

[Graham Bartlett]

With apologies to Freddy Mercury

Wikileaker! (Wikileaker) Wikileaker let him go!

Assage-assage NO! We will not let him go!

Let him go!

Assage-assage NO! We will not let him go!

Let him go!

Assage-assage NO! We will not let him go!

Let him go! will not let him go!

Let him go! will not let him go!

Let him go! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

Oh extradition, extradition, extradition let me go.

Beelzebub has a snow-plough put aside for me, for me, for MEEEEEEEE!

(Sound of SAS storming the building)

[historymaker118]

Re: With apologies to Freddy Mercury

This just made me laugh so much. Have some internets. And a pint on me.

[Kleykenb]

ANSTAAFL

He's gonna have to pay the pied piper.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ANSTAAFL

With rats or small children?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quid pro quo

Setting aside the legal arguments, if the UK is going to act like America's poodle in this whole affair can the USA administration at least say something a little supportive of the UK's position in the on going spat with Cristina Kirchner?

The UK relationship with the current US administration is a case of we scratch their back....we scratch their back....we scratch their back....we scratch their back........ you get the picture.

[Anonymous Coward]

erm

Its all a bit odd if you ask me, which you didnt,

I mean they let him leave the country (Sweden) did they not? I think we would have rather bigger issues if we stormed the soon to be ex embassy. I havent been paying an awful lot of attention, but isnt pretty much the whole of South America supporting the Ecuadorians on this? I wouldnt be surprised if Argentina didnt use it as means to galvanise the whole of south American behind them over the Falklands, and then arrange a little south Atlantic jolly for their special forces.

We (and the Swedish) should accept the offer of a local interview, as while this might not be Swedish law I am sure it falls within our law, and probably Ecuadorian law, you know technically the place this is happening, all we are doing is giving him free publicity. The Swedish can then decided to arrest him, or not and we have to deal with the consequences of his change in status, he becomes a wanted man with all that entails. I dont think the Ecuadorians will try to smuggle him out, it will do their reputation within Europe more harm than good.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

Re: erm

First they didn't let Assange walk out of the country. His lawyer attempted to dodge contact w the prosecutor's office as Assange left. Once Assange obtained counsel, all communication goes through counsel. Note that his counsel faced an investigation over his actions after he admitted in British court that he received text messages and that he misrepresented the facts that the Prosector had been trying to contact him to bring Assange in.

Since you admittedly don't know the facts, Ny under oath told the British courts that the purpose of the EAW is so that the can charge him.

So your idea of just coming to the UK to investigate is not well thought out.

You also don't seem to know your law either...

You have a right to express an opinion, however it would be a reasonable assumption that you also take the time to get the facts before forming an opinion...

[Levente Szileszky]

Re: erm

"First they didn't let Assange walk out of the country. His lawyer attempted to dodge contact w the prosecutor's office as Assange left. Once Assange obtained counsel, all communication goes through counsel. Note that his counsel faced an investigation over his actions after he admitted in British court that he received text messages and that he misrepresented the facts that the Prosector had been trying to contact him to bring Assange in."

First, please stop the BS - you obviously either have no clue about the facts and just parroting the BS or you are indeed full of shite, Sir.

In short here is your answer, starting from the relevant part of the Australian ABC documentary on the story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2EaE80TiiQ&hd=1&t=18m4s

The transcript of the important part, in detail:

"Sitting outdoors with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!", Anna Ardin tweeted, as she sat at a barbecue she had arranged for Assange. Yet according to the allegations she would later bring against him he had recently sexually abused her. "You wouldn't send such messages if you had been raped by someone the night before", argues Assange's lawyer. Both Assange and his supporters believe the attempt to force his return to Sweden is simply the first step in a plan to see him extradited to the United States and that the case against him is a set up.

It's clear that when Assange arrived in Sweden Anna Ardin & Sofia Wilen were both enthralled by the Wikileaks phenomena and he slept with both women over a period of weeks. The charges originated with a misunderstanding in a Stockholm police station that "some sort of sex crime had been committed". Wilen refused to sign what had been taken down. Assange was interviewed but not charged with any offence. But 12 days after being given permission to leave the country, the case was re-opened and the Swedes issued a warrant for his arrest.

At this point Assange was at the height of his powers and three weeks later he delivered a massive hit against America: the Iraq War Logs. An outraged US labelled him a "traitor" and were overcome with calls to "shoot the son-of-a-bitch". Shortly afterwards Sweden issued an Interpol Red Notice for his arrest; a highly unusual move. "Red Notices are normally the preserve of terrorists and dictators. Even Gaddafi was not subject to a Red Notice."

After 500 days of fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden, Assange made his dramatic dash to the Ecuadorian embassy. In an interview from inside, Assange claims he had sensed the net tightening around him when, "the Swedish government publicly announced that it would detain me without charge in severe conditions. On the same evening security contractors turned up unannounced at 10:30pm and insisted on fitting another manacle to my leg".

So let me repeat it, IMG: he DID appear, the Swedish police DID interview him, they had asked him to stay then they DID drop the case and Swedish authorities DID ALLOW him to leave Sweden - only to *suddenly* reopen the case and immediately issue an unprecedented Interpol Red Notice two weeks later.

Ahh and you are full of it, as I said.

[Sarah Davis]

i agree,..

forget the crimes and atrocities Mr Assange has helped make public (oh, i see you have already), it's not really a crime when your government lie to you, mis-spend your taxes without telling you, or murder innocent men, women, and children whilst laughing about it. These things are secret because the gov don't want you to know and so it's none of your business. Stop complaining, stop having fanciful ideas about truth and justice, and STFU. Instead, look at the shiny Assange shaped object and hear our voice. This good man is bad. The truth he tells embarrasses us so it must be lies. Go back to work and be quiet !

[Ian Michael Gumby]

Re: i agree,..

First, what crimes did Julian make public? Seriously. The truth is none.

What Julian did do was make his informants criminals.

The guy who gave Wikileaks a dump of Swiss banking data sits in Jail.

Manning also sits in jail.

Both broke the respective laws of their countries in order to provide data to Wikileaks. Yet that's the only crimes uncovered by Wikileaks.

But that's not the point.

Little boy Julian allegedly broke the laws in Sweden and before he could be brought in to be charged he fled.

Now he's making a big scene because he doesn't want to face his accusers.

Seems to me you don't know anything about truth or justice.

[Nev]

If I ws the Ecuadorian ambassador to London...

... I'd start randomly shipping man-sized/weighted boxes all over the world from my London Embassy.

Just to play around with the guys on the police cordon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: If I ws the Ecuadorian ambassador to London...

Couldn't they 3d-scan him and make a Han Solo-style carbonite block to ship out, just for giggles? ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Idea!

Why not slice Assange into rectangular wafers and print all over him, then export him as diplomatic papers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Idea!

Interesting idea! They could also just take out the trash and leave ASSange by the curb for the U.K. authorities or trash collectors.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear

For all the Julianleftyluvies.

When your suspected of a crime you do not get to place conditions on how Authorities deal with you. No matter how much of a red face you left Uncle Sam with. It also does not give him a free pass on serious allegations of a sexual nature on the basis that there is a chance he will be scooped up by the Americans for what they see as a breach of their security regardless of the merits of it all.

Julian is not special, not above the Law here in the UK or Sweden and dare I say the US. He painted a very big target on himself going at them like that then whoring it up hard in the media. Did he really expect them to just walk away without any response?

Where are your principles now Julian? Shacked up with a tinpot South-American president. Who oppresses everything you expound to hold dear. What about Brad Manning Julian? He's the one truly paying for your 15 minutes of fame. .....Beware false prophets!

Assange and supporters are dreaming if you think this is going to end well for Julian.

[Levente Szileszky]

"Have you no sense of decency, Sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

... - what a lowlife this little twat is (Hague), along with the entire, utterly incompetent UK government, of course.

Allow me to repeat myself from a few days ago...

...is it the same UK that protected Augusto Pinochet from extradition to face charges for torture and murder that is going so out of the way now to extradite Assange for "coercion" (not rape, not torture, not murder nor anything similar*) they are REGULARLY threaten to ignore the embassy status and raid the building with force?

And I just recently read the article how a Brit was sent to prison by Hollywood's parasites *in the UK*, by a UK court, see details here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/private-justice-how-hollywood-money-put-a-brit-behind-bars/

Dear Jesus, government, laws, police, courts sentence - is there anything left you cannot *BUY* in the UK?

FWIW I'm still undecided about Assange or his actions but boy, what an incompetent, disgusting, lowlife government you Brits have, it's just breathtaking... I feel for you. From the other side of the pond it really seems like the worst in the past 30 years (yes, I really said that, Major included.)

* keep in mind that while Assange's coercion is still in question, the forceful coercion committed by the Swedish Police definitely *DID* happen when the second girl wanted to leave and revoke her statement/deposition/whatever it's called - and this is just beside the more than eyebrow-raising fact that the first, supposedly "coerced" woman was living and partying with Assange for *SEVERAL* *MORE* *DAYS* *AFTER* her supposed coercion took place, see the details in the unparalleled documentary of the Australian ABC about Assange's story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2EaE80TiiQ&feature=watch-now-button&wide=1

Pathetic Swedish police, that is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Have you no sense of decency, Sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Downvote for dissing Sir John, greatest British politician since Harold Wilson.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Have you no sense of decency, Sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

And who also couldn''t keep it in his trousers, surprisingly enough, like all the participants in the Swedish case.

[Anonymous Coward]

Denial has never changed reality

Juli is about to get a reality check.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Denial has never changed reality

Along with Assange, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg of TPB is now going to get a reality check. They can run, but they can't hide forever.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/fugitive-co-founder-pirate-bay-detained-cambodia-975956

[Anonymous Coward]

Phuck around, go to prison

These people never learn.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Levente Szileszky

if he's so clearly 'innocent' of these charges (not that their are any charges, they want to interview him, according to swedish law) then he should have no issue going to face them. the fact he keeps trying to make it about the US (who as far as we can see, dont give a fuck - otherwise they'd have extradited him somewhat sooner, dont you think? like when he was in the UK or Sweden, where they have extradition rights?) is a very flimsy excuse quite honestly.

regardless, he IS now guilty of jumping bail in the UK, and as far as i'm concerned should be prosecuted for that to the full extent possible.

he's always been an asshat, now he's being a more expensive one.

[Levente Szileszky]

Re: @Levente Szileszky

Another coward PoS AC...

FYI you are waaay off.

Assange DID do an interview at the Swedish Police, he was not allowed to leave first, he stayed.

Later he was told the CASE WAS DROPPED and he can leave. He left for the UK.

Then suddenly, couple of weeks later they have reopened the case, one might say interestingly enough right around when Wikileaks published the now-infamous Iraqi War Logs and all hell broke loose, FauxNews had hourly competition of people calling for the ASSASSINATION of Assange...

...within days Sweden issued a Red Notice-priority arrest warrant - something not even Gadhafi was worthy of but this reopening of a supposed "coercion" case with deposit from Assange DID...

...you make your mind up about this "coincidence", ahem.

I don't really like the guy's attitude or character either, his actions are also confusing - Ecuador? The country that's about to extradite a journalist (google Barankov) to the moustachioed idiot dictator of Belarus? - but after all this BS going on claiming he should just go there and offer himself up is downright ridiculous, an obvious BS, you are either not aware of the facts or you just ignore them.

Ahh and please, let's just STFU about UK and the rule of law - RIAA/MPAA can literally *BUY* sentences in your courts now, let alone UK's defense of Augusto Pinochet, the mass-murderer and torturer ex-dictator... UK and rule of law, my @ss, sorry - rule of the highest bidder, that is.

See the Aussie ABC documentary for exact details: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2EaE80TiiQ

[Matt Bryant]

Re: @Levente Szileszky

LOL! Well, at least you supply a detailed insight into whatever the dupes in the Internet echo chamber are frothing about!

[Anonymous Coward]

How's the storming getting on? Does it involve lots of coffee and doughnuts and sitting on one''s bum whilst dressed in Blackshirt-inspired SWAT-style riot gear? :P

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8425252.stm