Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Which part? All I can find is the part where we're not allowed to go into their embassy. Nothing about us revoking their ability to have an embassy or our ability to revoke it, we just have to allow them safe passage out of the country if we do.
Well how many times has this exact circumstance occurred? We have done it before to get squatters out of an embassy, exact same law too. So that we didn't break the convention.
|
Do you have a link for that, as I'm not aware of any cases where this has happened. Also, do you know of any foreign countries have or have used similar laws.
Quote:
|
Which is why we would rather not do it. However we have abided by the law here, he is wanted for charges of sexual assault in Sweden and we're obliged to honor the extradition treaty. So as soon as he steps out we'll arrest him.
|
We could refuse on the grounds that the negative consequences would far outstrip the benefit of having Assange put on trial.
Quote:
We haven't actually started these proceedings because it would take a very long time, it's messy and nobody wants to do it. We're just reminding them that we can.
The Asylum claim is rubbish anyway, being investigated for sexual offensives is not a reason is claim asylum.
|
Yes, but the rape claim is a little dodgy as well. If I recall correctly, he was first cleared and then the case was re-opened. I do think there is more to this than just the rape claim (or actually, I think it's a claim for assault: consensual sex without protection).