WikiLeaks

Originally Posted by nomadking

If that happened, then as he has shown contempt for bail conditions, hopefully he will be locked up on remand for even longer than if he had just given himself up in the first place.

good point

Originally Posted by martyh

Even if we did go in and arrest him i think there would be an army of lawyers running to the EU courts contesting the legality of the arrest and tieng it up for years

Ok. We've debunked this suggestion we're going to invade Ecuador's embassy several times now. It's not just happening.

we would only be breaking our legal obligation if he was on British soil and since he isn't then we have no obligation legal or otherwise .

We would have failed for letting him escape in the first place. However he will be on British soil at some point, he can't get from London to a Ecuador without doing so.

I am still puzzled by this Statement being read out, outside the Embassy on Sunday at 2pm. Will he give himself up or will he take heed off one his close friends who said on Sky News that he could use a loophole by becoming an Ecuadorian Citizen and be granted Diplomatic status and become untouchable this way?

Originally Posted by danielf

I don't think it's right, but I'm not sure if it's improper. Second, it remains to be seen how the local law sits with international law, so there may well be an issue there.

No international law issues. We decide who has a embassy here. We expelled Iran already, no problems.

---------- Post added at 21:42 ---------- Previous post was at 21:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

I am still puzzled by this Statement being read out, outside the Embassy on Sunday at 2pm. Will he give himself up or will he take heed off one his close friends who said on Sky News that he could use a loophole by becoming an Ecuadorian Citizen and be granted Diplomatic status and become untouchable this way?

He have to approve diplomatic status in our country so he can't get out that way.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

No international law issues. We decide who has a embassy here. We expelled Iran already, no problems.

He have to approve diplomatic status in our country so he can't get out that way.

Severing all diplomatic ties with Ecuador is one thing, but a thing that wouldn't be done lightly, as there's a reason for having diplomatic ties. Telling the Ecuadorians they can have an embassy, but the one they have isn't one any longer, as we need access to the building to arrest someone is a different matter, and one that'll likely see the International Courts in The Hague tied up for a while.

Originally Posted by danielf

Severing all diplomatic ties with Ecuador is one thing, but a thing that wouldn't be done lightly, as there's a reason for having diplomatic ties. Telling the Ecuadorians they can have an embassy, but the one they have isn't one any longer, as we need access to the building to arrest someone is a different matter, and one that'll likely see the International Courts in The Hague tied up for a while.

Why would it? On what grounds? I haven't found anything that says a nation is entitled to an embassy.

Anyway it's very very unlikely it would ever get that far. The UK Government hasn't acted on that law yet and if they ever do then there would be months or years of court action (our courts) to sort it. No one wants that. However we need to keep challenging Ecuador because they've started this issue with us and we want to resolve it. We were just abiding by EU law, giving him his legal rights, and now he skipped bail and somehow has Asylum...

I think if the truth be known it will all boil down to who we value the most Sweden,USA (if there is any collaboration) or Ecuador ,and personally i don't think Ecuador have a look in

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Why would it? On what grounds? I haven't found anything that says a nation is entitled to an embassy.

But that isn't the issue. The issue is that when you do have an embassy, then the premises of that embassy are part of the country's territory and therefore inviolable. That is the diplomatic protocol. Britain would be within its rights to kick the Ecuadorian diplomats out of the country and tell them they no longer wish to have diplomatic ties with them (which would create a considerable diplomatic mess), but that isn't what they are suggesting they might do. They are suggesting they can declare that the embassy is no longer an embassy and then go in to nab Assange. That is unheard of in the diplomatic protocol and is likely to raise a few eyebrows around the world, as it means that the UK isn't playing by the diplomatic rules that the rest of the world plays by.

Btw: I had a look at the squatters' case. It seems to me this can't be compared, as this case was never contested by the Cambodians who'd not actually been in the embassy in nearly 12 years. Quite different from an embassy that is in active use.

Anyway it's very very unlikely it would ever get that far. The UK Government hasn't acted on that law yet and if they ever do then there would be months or years of court action (our courts) to sort it. No one wants that. However we need to keep challenging Ecuador because they've started this issue with us and we want to resolve it. We were just abiding by EU law, giving him his legal rights, and now he skipped bail and somehow has Asylum...

True. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out. We seem to be digging quite a hole for ourselves.

Originally Posted by danielf

True. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out. We seem to be digging quite a hole for ourselves.

We're dealing with what we've been given. We simply can't ignore it. If we risk upsetting Ecuador then so what? This is big boy politics now and they can't pull a stunt like they have done without facing consequences, they can either deal or face the pressure. Ecuador have granted a very unusual request for Asylum and given us a problem. We can't walk away because 'we're digging a hole for ourselves'. We have obeyed by both international and national laws and have done nothing wrong.

But that isn't the issue. The issue is that when you do have an embassy, then the premises of that embassy are part of the country's territory and therefore inviolable. That is the diplomatic protocol. Britain would be within its rights to kick the Ecuadorian diplomats out of the country and tell them they no longer wish to have diplomatic ties with them (which would create a considerable diplomatic mess), but that isn't what they are suggesting they might do. They are suggesting they can declare that the embassy is no longer an embassy and then go in to nab Assange. That is unheard of in the diplomatic protocol and is likely to raise a few eyebrows around the world, as it means that the UK isn't playing by the diplomatic rules that the rest of the world plays by.

It would cause a diplomatic problem, which is why we don't want to do it (have said this many times now), but it's an option open to us. We keep it on the table. Ecuador aren't playing by the same rules anyway. I don't buy this apologist scenario where Ecuador can screw us and we have to take it to avoid upsetting them.

Originally Posted by danielf

They are suggesting they can declare that the embassy is no longer an embassy and then go in to nab Assange. That is unheard of in the diplomatic protocol and is likely to raise a few eyebrows around the world, as it means that the UK isn't playing by the diplomatic rules that the rest of the world plays by.
.

That is what was mentioned today on radio 2 ,declaring the building "not an embassy" removing Assange and then declaring the building an embassy again is fraught with problems and basically makes the idea of Embassies being a particular countries soil worthless and if the UK ever did that it would certainly raise a few eye brows ,
imagine if we ever tried that on the US embassy

Originally Posted by martyh

That is what was mentioned today on radio 2 ,declaring the building "not an embassy" removing Assange and then declaring the building an embassy again is fraught with problems and basically makes the idea of Embassies being a particular countries soil worthless and if the UK ever did that it would certainly raise a few eye brows ,
imagine if we ever tried that on the US embassy

Well we wouldn't because the US could be a big problem for us. That's international politics for you. It's also a problem if people facing extradition can abscond to a embassy, that's going to raise a few eye brows as well.

At least our course of action hasn't happened yet, it just remains on the table. We're getting criticised for a course of action we haven't even began proceedings on and Ecuador blows a hole though the concept of extradition and we're the ones causing the problem!

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

We're dealing with what we've been given. We simply can't ignore it. If we risk upsetting Ecuador then so what? This is big boy politics now and they can't pull a stunt like they have done without facing consequences, they can either deal or face the pressure. Ecuador have granted a very unusual request for Asylum and given us a problem. We can't walk away because 'we're digging a hole for ourselves'. We have obeyed by both international and national laws and have done nothing wrong.

We're digging a hole for them because we are telling them we can go in despite this being a major headache. We are maneuvering ourselves in a position that we can't explain to either the Swedes, the Ecuadorians or the rest of the world. The smart thing to do would be to say: he's in Ecuadorian Territory now, so he's not our problem. If he sets foot on British territory we'll arrest him and extradite him.

Revoking diplomatic status is pretty much akin to kicking them out. Granted it's not the same but it's ends up meaning the same thing. They still wouldn't have grounds to go the International Court. They know the law here and we would afford them a legal process to fight it.

Ecuador aren't playing by the same rules anyway. I don't buy this apologist scenario where Ecuador can screw us and we have to take it to avoid upsetting them.

Kicking the Ecuadorian diplomats out would not be a wise move either. First, it would mean that we don't have an official channel to talk to them. Second, kicking the diplomats out is usually only done as a last resort (we still have an embassy in Argentina, and we're not exactly best mates with the Argies). Third, the UK would be seen as untrustworthy as it severs diplomatic ties with a country over something as trivial as who the country grants asylum (which ultimately is an internal issue).

Really, we are digging a big hole in my opinion. Neither of the two options is viable. We really are best off holding our hands up and saying "there's not a lot we can do right now".

Originally Posted by Damien

Well we wouldn't because the US could be a big problem for us. That's international politics for you. It's also a problem if people facing extradition can abscond to a embassy, that's going to raise a few eye brows as well.

At least our course of action hasn't happened yet, it just remains on the table. We're getting criticised for a course of action we haven't even began proceedings on and Ecuador blows a hole though the concept of extradition and we're the ones causing the problem!

wholeheartedly agree that Ecuador should not be putting us in this position in the first place but then we may not have helped ourselves by granting him bail

The minute he steps off Ecuadorian soil he will be arrested,extradited to Sweden.be put on trial and hopefully justice will seen to have been done.

Or he can spend the next 10,20,30 years in the Ecuador embassy.

Either way it's a result.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

The minute he steps off Ecuadorian soil he will be arrested,extradited to Sweden.be put on trial and hopefully justice will seen to have been done.

Or he can spend the next 10,20,30 years in the Ecuador embassy.

Either way it's a result.

There's no doubting that

There's also the possibility that the amount of mail leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy in lead clad coffin-sized cases suddenly leaps. All good entertainment