WikiLeaks

Originally Posted by danielf

But we would be breaking international conventions if we revoked the diplomatic status, and that would be unprecedented.

No we would not. It's an established law and we'll be doing it via the courts. It's ultimately our decision who has an embassy in our country. It's not unprecedented to revoke such status either, it's just this use of the law has only been used once. What international convention would we be breaking?

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.

Why do you keep saying unprecedented? There are several times embassies have been kicked out of a country.

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.

Not at will. They are harbouring someone we need to arrest. We will have to go though months or years of process to get them to hand me over or risk being kicked out.

---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:14 ----------

And still no one has told me the logic of America routing this via Sweden rather than applying directly to us.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

No we would not. It's an established law and we'll be doing it via the courts. It's ultimately our decision who has an embassy in our country. It's not unprecedented to revoke such status either, it's just this use of the law has only been used once. What international convention would we be breaking?

The Vienna convention, if I'm not mistaken.

Why do you keep saying unprecedented? There are several times embassies have been kicked out of a country.

I suppose they could revoke a person's diplomatic status, or break diplomatic relations altogether. But revoking the diplomatic status of the premises in order to get at someone residing there would be unprecedented.

Not at will. They are harbouring someone we need to arrest. We will have to go though months or years of process to get them to hand me over or risk being kicked out.

But the question then becomes how badly we want to arrest that person, and the message it sends out to other countries. It's not going to look good. How do you think the UK would react if another country (say Ecuador), would use similar local laws to arrest someone we'd granted asylum to. I think we'd kick up a mighty storm, and rightly so.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Damien

Not at will. They are harbouring someone we need to arrest. We will have to go though months or years of process to get them to hand me over or risk being kicked out.

Me? Is there something you're not telling us, Damien?

Originally Posted by danielf

The Vienna convention, if I'm not mistaken.

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.

I suppose they could revoke a person's diplomatic status, or break diplomatic relations altogether. But revoking the diplomatic status of the premises in order to get at someone residing there would be unprecedented.

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.

But the question then becomes how badly we want to arrest that person, and the message it sends out to other countries. It's not going to look good. How do you think the UK would react if another country (say Ecuador), would use similar local laws to arrest someone we'd granted asylum to. I think we'd kick up a mighty storm, and rightly so.

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 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.

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:46 ----------

Oh good! Assange is going to issue a statement outside the embassy. Get ready! We'll nab him then!

Why don't the Ecuadorians, Sweden and the UK simply ask the US if they have any interest in him ,if they reply no then send him off to sweden when he can prove ,as he maintains, his innocence.If they reply yes we want him then tell thhe US they have him after he has been questioned and tried in Sweden .Removing a countries diplomatic status should not be done in this case as we will lose all the trust of the other nations who have embassies in our country .

[danielf]

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.

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.

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).

[Osem]

I find myself terribly worried because I'm tending to agree with Danielf. Must remember to alter my medication...

[Tezcatlipoca]

Some interesting points regarding this: http://pme200.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/assange.html?m=1


I respect the work that Wikilieaks has done, but I think that Assange is a slimeball, and that if he genuinely believes that he is at risk of extradition to the US to be executed for espionage then IMO he is delusional.


The idea that it would be more likely for him to be extradited to the US from Sweden instead of the UK is absolute nonsense, as is the idea that he would be extradited to the US at all if charged by the US with a capital crime (and he has not been charged by the US, let alone had an extradition request made against him!).

To me, this all appears to be a case of avoiding facing the Swedish allegations, rather than the conspiracy theory rubbish that he is avoiding US persecution and alleged potential execution.

It is easier to extradite to the US from the UK than from Sweden. Why would the US go via Sweden using some bizarre conspiracy involving rape allegations, when it could simply make use of the allegedly rather one-sided extradition treaty that it has with the UK?

[Which, IIRC, was sold on the basis of making it easier to extradite terror suspects... not autistic hackers, bankers, or a man who ran a link site that was perfectly legal under UK law]

Even ignoring the fact that it is easier to extradite to the US from the UK rather than Sweden, if Assange were actually at risk of being executed in the US then it is also a fact that *no European country* would or could extradite him, because of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

Well this is us closing the Iranian embassy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15966628

This is the case of the only, known, use of the law in question: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A...201987&f=false

To be honest it's rare someone would pull such a stunt so you can't expect the law to have been used much. It's only been around for a couple of decades or so.

We could refuse on the grounds that the negative consequences would far outstrip the benefit of having Assange put on trial.

Is there such a prevision in the EU extradition treaty? We're obliged to arrest him and hand him over, we're not meant to judge the benefit of having him on trial. He isn't going to persecuted and his crime is a crime here so our judges found no reason to halt the request.

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).

Again. The Swedish courts are the ones who decide his guilt or the strength of the case. When we sign these treaties we do so because we believe in the integrity of the countries' justice systems. If they, via their legal system, have issued such a request we have to abide by it.

Also it's not consensual sex without protection. The woman in question alleges she consented on the condition he wear protection, claims he didn't, therefore the consent wasn't granted. There is also a accusation of sex whilst half-asleep and using his body to apply force against her will.

[Tezcatlipoca]

What I would actually find quite amusing would be for him to somehow escape to Ecuador, only for *them* to then hand him gift-wrapped to the US...

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'....

Nothing strange about it.

Raiding the house or storming it, one of the same thing.

Seen it used before - a google search shows it being used in the following news release:-

"In Friday’s early morning raid, troops stormed a house in the Bedouin desert town of Sheikh Zuweyid"

http://www.japantoday.com/smartphone...-sinai-attacks

Julian Assange isn't a folk hero. He's a nerd with some sort of personality disorder that causes him to believe he's on a messianic crusade when in fact all he's doing is hindering the lawful business of various Governments - business which, shock, horror - sometimes involves confidentiality.

However, none of that is a reason to haul him out of the Ecuadorian embassy by his short and curlies. The fact that he needs to face serious assault charges in a friendly nation, which is a mature democracy that fully respects the rule of law: that's the reason why we need to give Hugo Chavez the middle finger at the soonest opportunity and then have Assange on the first flight to Arlanda.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Damien

Also it's not consensual sex without protection. The woman in question alleges she consented on the condition he wear protection, claims he didn't, therefore the consent wasn't granted. There is also a accusation of sex whilst half-asleep and using his body to apply force against her will.

Exactly. It is not "simply" an allegation of "consensual sex without protection".

The offences he is alleged to have carried out are also illegal under English law as well as Swedish law, and one of the alleged offences is still classed as rape here just as it is in Sweden.

If you have sex with someone while they are asleep they cannot consent, if they cannot consent then it is rape. It's quite simple. That is what he is accused of allegedly doing.


See here for the actual charges, how they are also offences in the UK, and how it is more than just "sex without a condom":

The decision of the High Court: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2011/2849.html

And a piece from David Allen Green: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assang...r-english-law/

Originally Posted by Chris

Julian Assange isn't a folk hero. He's a nerd with some sort of personality disorder that causes him to believe he's on a messianic crusade when in fact all he's doing is hindering the lawful business of various Governments - business which, shock, horror - sometimes involves confidentiality.

However, none of that is a reason to haul him out of the Ecuadorian embassy by his short and curlies. The fact that he needs to face serious assault charges in a friendly nation, which is a mature democracy that fully respects the rule of law: that's the reason why we need to give Hugo Chavez the middle finger at the soonest opportunity and then have Assange on the first flight to Arlanda.

I agree somewhat with your post but how will forceably removing him under a law designed so murderers can't escape justice affect other nations with embassies on UK soil

Originally Posted by martyh

I agree somewhat with your post but how will forceably removing him under a law designed so murderers can't escape justice affect other nations with embassies on UK soil

That's why we don't want to do it and haven't yet started proceedings to do so. I don't we ever will. I think it will be a long, legal, stand-off. We can't go in but he can't leave, however he can't stay there forever....

[Tezcatlipoca]

From the "Jack of Kent" link, if anyone can't be bothered to read it:

Alleged Offence Number 4:

4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

The ruling of the Magistrates' Court:

The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state�. In this country that would amount to rape.

The ruling of the High Court:

It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

A legal blogger on the asylum claim: http://ffgqc.wordpress.com/2012/06/2...asylum-seeker/



David Allen Green on the "threat of storming":

New Statesman: Will the Ecuadorian embassy be stormed?

Last night the foreign minister of Ecuador warned that its London embassy was facing being “stormed� by the United Kingdom government. There had even been a threat in writing, it was claimed. This was a rather dramatic announcement, and it evoked images of SAS soldiers crashing through embassy windows to capture their cornered prey.

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. (See Carl Gardner’s excellent post on the applicable law.) 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.

And what would happen next is even less exciting. As the UK government will be purporting to be exercising a statutory provision – in this case a power under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 – then any executive action is in principle amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court for judicial review. Here it would be Ecuador challenging the UK government in a case that would raise complex points of domestic and international public law.

Accordingly, there will not be breaking glass in Kensington but the prospect of months (or perhaps years) of highly expensive litigation, which will probably reach the Supreme Court. In reality, Ecuador should now be more concerned about lawyers’ bills than any special forces “storming� its embassy.

(snip)