UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange

How rapidly people forget their history. Britain has a specific law on the subject because of an incident that occurred in Britain within my memory, a shooting of a police officer from within the grounds of the Libyan embassy.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher</a><p>No, harboring Julian Assange is not just like shooting at police officers outside the embassy, but preventing the host country from continuing to follow the steps of its agreements about accused defendants with another country is also not the normal activity of a diplomatic representative. There is a long tradition of dissidents seeking asylum in foreign embassies, and that tradition seems to be longest in Latin America, but that can also have consequences for the embassy's relationship with the host country.<p>AFTER EDIT:<p>By the way, it has been a very, very long time (since before I was born) since the United States federal government has imposed capital punishment for the crimes of treason or espionage (which, yes, could be a basis for capital punishment under federal law).<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government#Earlier_civilian_executions" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unite...</a><p><a href="http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00076.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...</a><p>Nowadays, it is routine for persons who revealed secret information to the harm of the United States to be imprisoned, sometimes for a term of years rather than for life.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies#Americans_convicted_of_spying_for_foreign_countries" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies#American...</a><p>Simply put, even IF Julian Assange were to have to leave Sweden after going from Britain to Sweden for questioning, and even IF Julian Assange were then charged with espionage by the United States, and even IF he were then convicted of espionage, it is quite doubtful that Assange would be executed. Most likely, he would just (if ALL of the hypothetical events happened) end up spending a lot of time in the Supermax prison in Colorado.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Florence_ADX#Inmate_population" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Flo...</a>

Its interesting that around all this talk about rape allegation, no actually allegation was made by the suggested victims called so by reporters. The two women were seeking advice on the possibility to force Assange to take a STD test after unprotected sex, and a prosecutor independently decided to start the prosecution after reading the report. One of the victims has gotten so tired of it all that she now refuses to testify, and refuses to sign any old statements she made in regards to the whole affair. The other woman, as far as I know, has left the country. If in a fantasy world this would go to trial in Sweden on rape charges, it would be unlikely to see either one of the two "victims" in court.

Isn't that basically an act of war? Or something just short of it? I can't remember another time when one country threatened to enter another country's embassy without an invitation... Have there been other cases like this in recent history??

The series of tweets from <a href="https://twitter.com/abcnews" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/abcnews</a> (Australian Broadcasting Corp):<p>- #Breaking Wikileaks founder Julian Assange granted asylum in Ecuador<p>- #BREAKING: British Government won't guarantee Julian Assange safe passage to airport to leave for Ecuador #assange<p>- Clarification - Ecuador wants to give Assange asylum, but Britain is refusing to grant safe passage #breaking #wikileaks<p>- Ecuador Foreign Minister says they received a letter from British govt threatening to enter embassy &#38; arrest Assange if he's not handed over

I strongly advise anyone who isn't familiar with English law (so, you know, most people here) to actually read what lawyers have to say about the matter. There is a very good legal analysis here:<p><a href="http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the-uk-withdraw-diplomatic-status-from-the-ecuadorian-embassy/" rel="nofollow">http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the...</a><p>Whenever I see a story here about Julian Assange I just sigh. I don't understand how on the one hand people can be absolutely appalled when stories about sexism at conference, in the workplace, etc etc come along and then take the sort of attitudes we see here.<p>Sweden would like to question Julian Assange about allegations made be two women. These women have a right to make these accusations, and they have a right for the state to investigate them. Nobody could <i>possibly</i> deny this.<p><i>Maybe</i>, just <i>maybe</i> this is a big fit up from people 'out to get' Assange. But you also have to concede that both the simplest explanation, and one not beyond the realms of possibility, is that these women are genuinely making these accusations. They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the scope of an extradition.<p>Most people accused of what Assange does do not have the luxury of fleeing to a foreign embassy. I don't see why it is so controversial that Assange should go and face these allegations. Supporters of Assange really can't have their cake and eat it.

So it appears that both the UK government and the Swedish government have lost moral authority due to their behavior on this issue. And if they violate the Ecuadoran embassy that could be considered an act of war. At the least a cause to cease diplomatic and trade relations.<p>If Sweden truly just wanted to question Assange, they could do it via mail, email, phone, video chat or of course an in person meeting in the UK. All of which I believe Assange has already offered to do. But they've declined. Which means that Sweden/UK/USA's actual goal is something <i>other</i> than simply questioning him. It's a fact that he's neither been convicted or even charged with any crime (IIRC), especially not with respect to the supposed sexual "assault" incidents, which look like he-said/she-said instances at best, and a frame-up at worst.

If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.

Bizarre. The usual script for these kinds of things is a standoff where the host country denies passage out of the embassy, so the person being harbored in the embassy is stuck there until either that person gives up, the embassy gives them up, or some kind of deal for passage or exchange is struck. Threatening to the invade the embassy isn't usually on the table, at least in peacetime.

I'm a little surprised by the HN crowd's desire to turn this into some kind of Michael Bay movie with diplomatic explosions left, right and centre: the phrase "act of war" is being dropped around as if some kind of violent confrontation would ever actually occur between Ecuador and the United Kingdom based on this. This is simply not the case; at most, it would be loosely unfair of the British government to 'bully' Ecuador into its bidding and they would protest as harshly as they could (not very). This is not a fair system; international relations is a system wherein "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"[1].<p>The Government here has advised that under through a sound legal process it may revoke the legal status of an instituion within and on its territory. Is this right? Well, it's a little unusual...alternatively, ignoring the interests and desires of Sweden, the European Union and the United States would be still further unwise for the British. Britain has its interests, and it must do what serves them best.<p>In this case, doing something less than usual is worth it: there's virtually no downside to upsetting a small Latin American country in the process. The British government just won't care. It's not fair, but for better or worse, that's that.<p>1: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides</a>

About time we started applying the pressure...<p>Assange is taking his supporters for a ride, if he's not guilty why doesn't he go back to Sweden and face the questions?<p>As for this "I offered to talk to the Swedes in the UK" business it's bollocks, since when has law-enforcement done things at the convenience of the 'accused'<p>The whole extradition to the US is a red-herring - have you seen how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to US if a US judge says they've got a case to answer?<p>Ship Assange out, if not Sweden then Australia, he's taking the piss (to use an UK colloquialism) and lots of people are falling for his conspiracy theory rubbish.

It appears under UK law the Prime Minister could denounce the embassy as no longer Ecuadorian territory.<p>The UK government has 'reminded' Ecuador of this fact in an attempt to influence their decision.

Eh, even if they get him, it's not like it's going to change much for WikiLeaks - the platform will go on, probably stronger than before. The politicians will pat themselves on the back for a "good job" catching Assange, while the leaks go on and people find out stuff they weren't supposed to know (and most of them don't even care either way).<p>The UK should be like, "well, whatever, he'll come out eventually" instead of issuing threats against other countries. Maybe they'll send in the SAS next - that would be interesting to watch...

Did anyone not see this coming? Does he actually think they won't go after him to the full extent they are capable?<p>The thing about being a martyr for a cause is that they usually don't walk away from the experience unscathed. I think this man thought he was untouchable and acted accordingly, deciding to be a celebrity instead of a quiet hero. Well, the hammer is dropping.<p>Good luck, Julian, you completely unlikable but necessary bastard. Hopefully the people who carry on in your stead are a bit more careful.

It is important to notice that when someone started shooting from Libyan embassy in the 80s and killed a British policewoman the UK's government did not enter the embassy. However, now in a case of far less importance(basically a case whether a condom broke on its own or did Assange do it on purpose) they consider doing it? Something is seriously not right here.

I am starting to think that the event Julian Assange fears most is that he'll end up in Sweden, walking down the street either a free man or after serving some time in jail, and have to wonder "what should I do now?"

The UK government is showing its true face, that of a tyrannical authoritarian government, who's legitimacy is threatened by the exact kind of transparency that Assange's organization intends to protect.

Why does Ecuador even want to stand its ground on this? Why do they want to harbor Assange in the first place? Seems silly to escalate this to the national level when they don't seem to benefit from it in any material or practical sense.

So, just to make sure I'm keeping up, the UK is threatening an act of war against Ecuador in order to extradite an Australian who's wanted by the US to Sweden. okithinkigotit.

This case continues to amaze me.<p>It is like a movie not real life.

I some how now expect loads of people turning up in anonymous masks outside the embassy with a group of people leaving also in aformentioned masks. There then ensues a combination of the Thomas Crown Affair and a Benny Hill sketch.<p>Now that possible outcome aside I do wonder if there are more important clear-cut cases of people in the UK wanted for questioning regarding crimes in Switzerland. I'm tending to think that if there was then that would of been made very public already and yet I have seen none. If he is in all effect Sitzerlands number one criminal suspect or wanted criminal in the UK and who's location is known then maybe this isn't as biased with regard to pursuit than any other case and only with the News value is it publicly deemed more impacting.<p>But thats not realy the issue, the issue if he ends up being shipped to America and lost in a maze of prisons that is the issue realy as if there was a case against him then America would of been granted a extradition from the UK, that did not happen. Now if that happens in Switzerland then that is the concern and the real issue and in that you can respect Mr Assange's concerns upon that matter and why he is taking the approach he is currently as that whole assurance has not been given that it will not happen. If he had that assurance then from my understanding is that this would not be an issue and in the news today. It is this that makes things concerning in how things are being possibly being handled.<p>RIP Yvonne Fletcher, justice was slow, but we do get there.

In 2012 a journalist is persecuted in this way. I never would have expected this to happen.

This looks like a raw smear against Assange. Would be interesting to know the political pressures being brought to bear on the Swedish prosecutor's office.

I'm quite surprised that its only now that the links to Argentina and Britians current wranglings with South American countries are being talked about.<p>Remember they are all friends. The UK has the Falklands which Argentina (mates of Ecuador) are very keen to take ownership, especially with the discovery of every conspiracy theorists favourite motivator.... OIL<p>Yes boys and girls, perhaps this whole thing is less to do with Assange and wiki-leaks and more to do with a bit of dick waving over old wounds and money. That's a better theory for whats going on now

I think we are about to witness the only real rape in this whole sad story.

Absolute disgrace.

It appears that the livestreaming site bambuser.com is down after a British fellow started streaming from outside the embassy and it was picked up by wikileaks on twitter:<p><a href="http://twitter.com/alburyj" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/alburyj</a> <a href="http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj" rel="nofollow">http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj</a>

What appears to be the text of the communication:<p><a href="http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/2012/carta-britanica.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/201...</a>