WikiLeaks

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by Mick

As I said previously, the puppet strings are far reaching from across the pond.

It's a good job Assange is only alleged to be a serial rapist and a traitor.

Had he been fitted up on a really serious offence like some trumped up copyright infringement BS the Yanks might well have "persuaded" us to use our SAS to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy to take him out "dead or alive"

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

It's a good job Assange is only alleged to be a serial rapist and a traitor.

Had he been fitted up on a really serious offence like some trumped up copyright infringement BS the Yanks might well have "persuaded" us to use our SAS to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy to take him out "dead or alive"

Good thing that the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 has been passed for just the purpose of extraditing alleged rapists, and not for minor incidents. It seems wholly proportional to storm the Embassy of a Sovereign Nation in order to ensure that justice is seen to be done.

Originally Posted by Mick

The Evidence is right in front of us Damien, since when would we risk a potential diplomatic falling out over one man ?

We're legally obliged to arrest him. When he steps on British soil we've have to do it. We can't let it pass. The statement was stupid but it was really only clarifying the law as it stands.

This one man, who has been accused of Sexual Assault, big wow, he is only at the accused stage, you or I or some Joe Bloggs in the street can be accused of doing something, doesn't mean they are guilty of it. Assange has technically not been charged of the crime.

That doesn't matter. Just because you're not charged with a crime doesn't mean your entitled to flee from investigation and any criminal proceedings nor does it mean it's not worth following. How can he be charged or guilty of a crime if he is a fugitive from justice? Sweden cannot charge him until he is caught.

Besides it's not our problem if he is charged with a crime or not. We're simply enacting our legal obligation to arrest him and pack him off to Sweden. He probably has now committed a crime in Britain anyone since he has skipped bail.

Sweden cannot storm another Countries Embassy on British soil. But Britain can and has made a strong threat that it can do so. Nothing can happen until someone makes a move, which is why I am guessing someone from across the pond, is leaning on Britain to make the first move and quickly.

There is a good analysis of our 'strong threat' here: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/po...ssy-be-stormed

The reality seems to be more mundane. The UK government appears to have pointed out that it has the legal power to revoke the embassy status of the premises currently being used by the Ecuadorian embassy. As such, this is merely a statement of what the law says. The UK government added that it does not want to use that power and hopes for an eventual compromise. Any threat is at best implicit, but it is hardly a brutal ultimatum.

Basically we're not storming the embassy but reminding them we can start legal proceedings to revoke their status as an embassy. The justification being that they are misusing their status as an embassy, the author points out that harbouring someone accused of sexual offences probably is gross misuse.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by danielf

Good thing that the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 has been passed for just the purpose of extraditing alleged rapists, and not for minor incidents. It seems wholly proportional to storm the Embassy of a Sovereign Nation in order to ensure that justice is seen to be done.

But it would no longer be deemed an Embassy of a Sovereign nation. It would just be a house.

You seem to be sarcastically implying that you consider rape to be a 'minor incident', or is that definition just reserved for 'darlings' of the left(eg Strauss-Khan, Polanski)?

Should he and others be able to get away with crimes, even ones such as murder, by simply skipping the country?

Why would the US have to manufacture a criminal offence in order to extradite him?

No one has explained to me the logic of the US routing this process via Sweden either...

And nobody seems have to said where the phrase "storming the Embassy" came from (which seems a helluva leap from revoking the status).

Originally Posted by Hugh

And nobody seems have to said where the phrase "storming the Embassy" came from (which seems a helluva leap from revoking the status).

Once the Diplomatic status has been removed, surely it will be 'Stormed' by UK cops. Like any other address, if someone has a warrant for their arrest, and they are refusing to answer the door, the next step usually involves 'storming' the house surely?

Originally Posted by Mick

Once the Diplomatic status has been removed, surely it will be 'Stormed' by UK cops. Like any other address, if someone has a warrant for their arrest, and they are refusing to answer the door, the next step usually involves 'storming' the house surely?

Storming a normal house to get someone who we're meant to arrest. It won't be storming the embassy nor will it be breaking any international conventions, nor would it be going onto another countries soil. It would be a normal process. However it would take months or years to go though the courts to complete such a process.

As the article I linked to above points out, 'storming the embassy' is far more dramatic than what the UK government said. People to think that government said 'we can go in and get him' when they actually said there is a law that allows them to start proceedings to revoke their embassy in London.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And nobody seems have to said where the phrase "storming the Embassy" came from (which seems a helluva leap from revoking the status).

Why use a simple accurate phrase when a nice emotive one ups the ante quite nicely?...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But it would no longer be deemed an Embassy of a Sovereign nation. It would just be a house.

True, but the process of revoking the diplomatic status would be (as far as I know) unprecedented.

You seem to be sarcastically implying that you consider rape to be a 'minor incident', or is that definition just reserved for 'darlings' of the left(eg Strauss-Khan, Polanski)?

I'm not sure what political leaning has to do with anything. I've already stated that I think that Assange is an irresponsible moron. I have absolutely no time for the man. However, in the greater scheme of things, I think that rape (especially in the loose Swedish definition) is a minor offence that does not justify the steps that the UK govenment is suggesting it's considering.

Originally Posted by Mick

Once the Diplomatic status has been removed, surely it will be 'Stormed' by UK cops. Like any other address, if someone has a warrant for their arrest, and they are refusing to answer the door, the next step usually involves 'storming' the house surely?

Strange - when the Police arrested six terror suspects earlier this year, it was 'an early morning raid', they didn't 'storm their houses'....

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Mick

As I said previously, the puppet strings are far reaching from across the pond.

Do you *really* think that if the US could extert enough control over us or Sweden to guarantee an extradition against his will, that they couldn't do the same to Ecuador?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Strange - when the Police arrested six terror suspects earlier this year, it was 'an early morning raid', they didn't 'storm their houses'....

raid:

a sudden assault or attack, as upon something to be seized or suppressed: a police raid on a gambling ring.
2.
Military . a sudden attack on the enemy, as by air or by a small land force.

storm:

to deliver a violent attack or fire, as with artillery: The troops stormed against the garrison.
12.
to rush to an assault or attack: The tanks stormed towards the city.

Yep. Nothing in common at all...

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm not sure what political leaning has to do with anything. I've already stated that I think that Assange is an irresponsible moron. I have absolutely no time for the man. However, in the greater scheme of things, I think that rape (especially in the loose Swedish definition) is a minor offence that does not justify the steps that the UK govenment is suggesting it's considering.

I don't think rape is a minor offence and what is he accused of doing would still be rape here. Sex without the woman's consent.

However it doesn't matter from the UK's point of view. We're not the ones pressing charges. We're executing our legal obligation to extradite him, it's not out job to decide if such a request is serious enough. He has been afforded due process and we have followed the law.

We can't just let it drop.

---------- Post added at 17:56 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Yep. Nothing in common at all...

Sorry but revoking a embassy status is different to storming the embassy. For a start we wouldn't be breaking any international conventions as you said earlier.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't think rape is a minor offence and what is he accused of doing would still be rape here. Sex without the woman's consent.

However it doesn't matter from the UK's point of view. We're not the ones pressing charges. We're executing our legal obligation to extradite him, it's not out job to decide if such a request is serious enough. He has been afforded due process and we have followed the law.

We can't just let it drop.

Sorry but revoking a embassy status is different to storming the embassy. For a start we wouldn't be breaking any international conventions as you said earlier.

But we would be breaking international conventions if we revoked the diplomatic status, and that would be unprecedented. What's more, while rape clearly is a serious crime, we need to weigh up the seriousness of that offence against the unprecedented move of revoking diplomatic status. In that context, I do think that rape is a relatively minor issue. It is not a matter of national safety or something like that, and it's going to look very odd to other nations if the UK is suddenly saying that they will revoke diplomatic status pretty much at will.