• Hague ignored lawyers to send Assange 'threat' note
    18 replies, posted
[quote] The calamitous Foreign Office note to Ecuador – interpreted there and elsewhere as a threat to raid the country's London embassy where the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, is holed up – was sanctioned by William Hague, despite the grave reservations of lawyers in his department. At least one of the lawyers at the Foreign Office (FCO) expressed concern over the warning that Britain could use the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 to "storm" the embassy building and remove Assange, who faces sex crime allegations in Sweden. A senior Whitehall source said yesterday that staff feared the move could provoke retaliatory attacks against British embassies overseas. The potential use of the 1987 Act was included in an FCO "speaking note" delivered to the Ecuadorians on Wednesday, the day before President Correa granted him asylum. The law permits Britain to revoke the status of a diplomatic mission if the state in question "ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post" – but only if such a move is "permissible under international law". In its letter, Britain added – in the time-honoured fashion of someone threatening to send the boys round – "We very much hope not to get to this point." Although the Government has claimed the reference to the 1987 Act was not a threat, the note sparked a furious response around the world. Ecuador has already convened a special meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) this Friday to discuss "the inviolability of the diplomatic premises of Ecuador in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in accordance with international law". One Foreign Office staffer attempted to play down the crisis, insisting, despite the continuing war of words: "We wish to seek a diplomatic solution to this." This afternoon at 2pm, Assange is due to make a statement "outside" the embassy. He will not only have to be sure he remains on Ecuador premises, lest he be arrested, but will have to weigh his words carefully. Under Ecuador's asylum offer, Assange is not permitted to make political statements, restrictions that are standard for anyone granted asylum, said an Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry official. The Wikileaks founder is wanted for questioning by Swedish authorities on one count of unlawful coercion, two of sexual molestation, and one of rape following allegations made by two women. Assange insists the sex they had was entirely consensual. He left Sweden before he could be seen by police, and came to Britain. So began the long process to extradite him which wound its way through the British courts. What has hung over these proceedings – and led to the offer of diplomatic asylum (not political asylum, as widely reported) – is his claim that, once extradited to Sweden, he would be shipped to the US to stand trial for his part in the publication on Wikileaks of thousands of US government cables, and then possibly executed. The US has never clarified its position on possible proceedings against Assange, despite having held Bradley Manning, the man accused of passing the cables to Wikileaks, in custody for many months. Nor has it dismissed the unlikely thesis that any charges he might face would carry the death penalty for this non-US citizen. (Under European law, if by any chance execution was an option this would prevent his extradition to the US anyway.) Ecuador said it had tried, without success, to get assurances from Britain and Sweden that Assange could not be extradited to a third country. Puzzling, too, has been Sweden's refusal to accept Ecuador's offer to question Assange in their London embassy. It was on 19 June that Assange skipped bail and sought refuge in the Ecuador embassy in Hans Crescent, near Harrods in Knightsbridge, west London. The embassy consists of 10 rooms on the first floor. Assange is living in a small office that has been equipped with a bed, exercise machine, sun lamp (the embassy has no garden) and internet connection. A shower has been installed, and there is a small kitchenette. "It's not quite the Hilton," said Gavin MacFadyen, a friend. Sarah Saunders, with whom Assange stayed in her East Sussex cottage, has been taking him food parcels. "I took him a chocolate cake but I'm limited in what I'm able to bring," she said. "I hate the thought of him having prison food, because he has a very sensitive palate." There are conflicting reports about his mental state. His mother, Christine Assange, said last month: "He is under a lot of stress and it's been long-term stress now for nearly two years and in conditions which are similar to detention." Yet supporters who have visited claim he is more buoyant. Ms Saunders said: "When he got the news [about asylum] he was clearly absolutely delighted. The Ecuadorians have been incredibly hospitable." Vaughan Smith, the WikiLeaks supporter who hosted Assange for more than a year at his country mansion, visited last week and said his friend was holding up well: "As a person though, he is happiest behind a computer doing his job. He is coping well. He was the same Julian he was when he was staying with me. He is not a sentimental person and so does not miss things other people might miss. A spokesman for Assange, said: "He's been spending a lot of time monitoring the investigation by the FBI [into Wikileaks]. We recently learnt a bit about the scope of it and around 2,000 documents have been gathered in that investigation." Ecuador, even if it wanted to be so provocative, lacks any obvious means of getting Assange past the police officers on the doorstep, on to a plane, and out of Britain. The embassy is not linked internally with any of the building's gated entrances, making the front entrance its only point of exit. Even if he somehow managed to get into a waiting car, he would have to leave the vehicle at some point to board a flight out of Britain. More adventurous scenarios, involving crates, diplomatic bags and airlifts, are dismissed as very unlikely by diplomats and lawyers. Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador since 2007 and facing re-election in February, is an economist who has used Ecuador's oil revenues to boost public spending. He is populist, intolerant of media criticism (to the point of repression, say his critics), but is not a hothead. Although he has been widely applauded in his own country and throughout the region for his stance on Assange, there could yet be a price to pay. At present, Ecuador is the beneficiary of the Andean Trade Preference Act, which allows its goods into the US free of tariffs. Forty-five per cent of Ecuador's exports go to the US, accounting for about 400,000 jobs. Chevron Corp and many US business groups are urging the White House to suspend Ecuador's benefit. Meanwhile, the lawyer for the two forgotten people of the case, the Swedish women, said his clients deserved justice. "It's an abuse of the asylum instrument, the purpose of which is to protect people from persecution and torture if sent back to one's country of origin," said Claes Borgstrom. "It's not about that here. He doesn't risk being handed over to the United States for torture or the death penalty. He should be brought to justice in Sweden." [/quote] More proof Hague is a puffed up idiot? [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hague-ignored-lawyers-to-send-assange-threat-note-8060061.html[/url] Comments are mostly an interesting read too: [quote]There is something more than fishy about the way Sweden is acting in this case. There is no reason at all why the Swedish police can not interview Mr. Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy in London - or for that matter over the phone; after all, if Sweden wants to claim that physical contact is an essential aspect of interrogation by their police, perhaps they have some explaining to do.[/quote] [quote]You might want to add that the statement: He (Julian Assange) left Sweden before he could be seen by police, and came to Britain, is incorrect, or incomplete or both. When a Superior Court prosecutor dismissed the accusations, on August 30 Assange willingly went to the police to make his own statement and, after having waited 5 weeks, was permitted to leave the country. On September 15 he flew to London. The way the Independent reported leads to think that Assange 'skipped the country' while a police investigation was required... [/quote]
okay seriously does anyone still think this is about low tier sex crimes anymore
Oh, what governments'll do to say "Don't fuck with us"
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;37312629]okay seriously does anyone still think this is about low tier sex crimes anymore[/QUOTE] it's about image now that so much publicity has come. allowing assange to piss off to ecuador will be a slap in the face to the prestige of britain and sweden and their respective legal systems.
Diplomatic car drives straight into a cargo plane? Would be one way of staying within a diplomatic vehicle.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37312676]it's about image now that so much publicity has come. allowing assange to piss off to ecuador will be a slap in the face to the prestige of britain and sweden and their respective legal systems.[/QUOTE] After all this, I think both Britain and Sweden deserve a slap to their 'prestige' and image. [editline]19th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SataniX;37312684]Diplomatic car drives straight into a cargo plane? Would be one way of staying within a diplomatic vehicle.[/QUOTE] Ecuador [I]could[/I] sneak him out, but then having Assange popping up in their country would end up making [I]them[/I] look bad.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37312944]After all this, I think both Britain and Sweden deserve a slap to their 'prestige' and image. [editline]19th August 2012[/editline] Ecuador [I]could[/I] sneak him out, but then having Assange popping up in their country would end up making [I]them[/I] look bad.[/QUOTE] If you've got hard evidence that there's some grand Brit-Swede conspiracy to send Assange to Gitmo I'd like to see it, but right now I'm finding it hard to knock Sweden for wanting to investigate an alleged rapist and Britain wanting to arrest a bail-jumper.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37312981]If you've got hard evidence that there's some grand Brit-Swede conspiracy to send Assange to Gitmo I'd like to see it, but right now I'm finding it hard to knock Sweden for wanting to investigate an alleged rapist and Britain wanting to arrest a bail-jumper.[/QUOTE] This from this article sounds pretty suspicious. "Ecuador said it had tried, without success, to get assurances from Britain and Sweden that Assange could not be extradited to a third country. Puzzling, too, has been Sweden's refusal to accept Ecuador's offer to question Assange in their London embassy." Why are they trying so hard to get to a supposed rapist? Why is England threatening to basically cut all diplomatic ties to Ecuador by declaring their embassy's mission ended then raiding it for him? For just one man? Countries have tried less to get a hold of murderers.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37313151]This from this article sounds pretty suspicious. "Ecuador said it had tried, without success, to get assurances from Britain and Sweden that Assange could not be extradited to a third country. Puzzling, too, has been Sweden's refusal to accept Ecuador's offer to question Assange in their London embassy." Why are they trying so hard to get to a supposed rapist? Why is England threatening to basically cut all diplomatic ties to Ecuador by declaring their embassy's mission ended then raiding it for him? For just one man? Countries have tried less to get a hold of murderers.[/QUOTE] Like I said: prestige. Given how much this is playing on the world stage (more than any murderer), both countries will lose face hard if they let Assange defy both their legal processes. Also, Ecuador's decision to take Assange in is an obvious diplomatic insult to Britain; while I can't actually see them raiding the embassy, they're not going to take it lying down. Maybe it seems petty, but in international relations, this matters.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37313336]Like I said: prestige. Given how much this is playing on the world stage (more than any murderer), both countries will lose face hard if they let Assange defy both their legal processes. Also, Ecuador's decision to take Assange in is an obvious diplomatic insult to Britain; while I can't actually see them raiding the embassy, they're not going to take it lying down. Maybe it seems petty, but in international relations, this matters.[/QUOTE] Why in the world would Ecuador take Assange in just for a diplomatic insult? What does Ecuador have against GB?
and you're gonna have to define rapist a bit more clearly there buddy it's not like assange chased down underaged women in a PCP induced haze and dragged them to his dungeon that he dug out of his mom's basement From what i understand his crimes come down to having sex with consenting women, then having sex with them in ways they didn't consent to so, yeah, complete asshole but not really worth breaking into the ecuadorian embassy
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37313369]Why in the world would Ecuador take Assange in just for a diplomatic insult? What does Ecuador have against GB?[/QUOTE] Probably the same thing a whole lot of former colonies have against ex-colonial masters. Do you really think, given Ecuador's ironically-horrible history of press freedom, that Ecuador's just trying to strike a blow for free speech? @Scorpius - I define rapist as someone who has sex with another without their consent. That's what Assange is being accused of. I agree that it's probably not worth breaking into the Ecuadorian embassy for but, as I said, it's more than just that now.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37313416]Probably the same thing a whole lot of former colonies have against ex-colonial masters. Do you really think, given Ecuador's ironically-horrible history of press freedom, that Ecuador's just trying to strike a blow for free speech? @Scorpius - I define rapist as someone who has sex with another without their consent. That's what Assange is being accused of. I agree that it's probably not worth breaking into the Ecuadorian embassy for but, as I said, it's more than just that now.[/QUOTE] 1) Ecuador was a [I]Spanish[/I] colony. 2) They ended colonial times [I]over a hundred years ago.[/I]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37313437]1) Ecuador was a [I]Spanish[/I] colony. 2) They ended colonial times [I]over a hundred years ago.[/I][/QUOTE] Perhaps there's other machinations, then. Either way, it's a diplomatic insult to the Britain, and it's almost certainly with ill-intent unless you actually believe Ecuador is (misguidedly) trying to stand up for journalistic freedom. e: as an aside, the "100 years ago" thing doesn't actually mean much for some. plenty of national groups still bear grievances over century-old conflicts.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37313468]Perhaps there's other machinations, then. Either way, it's a diplomatic insult to the Britain, and it's almost certainly with ill-intent unless you actually believe Ecuador is (misguidedly) trying to stand up for journalistic freedom. e: as an aside, the "100 years ago" thing doesn't actually mean much for some. plenty of national groups still bear grievances over century-old conflicts.[/QUOTE] You're pulling unsupported reasons out of your ass. You can't say, "Ok, maybe it's [I]this[/I] then. Ok no? Maybe it's [I]this[/I] then" instead of actually accepting the other's argument.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37313416] @Scorpius - I define rapist as someone who has sex with another without their consent. That's what Assange is being accused of.[/QUOTE] No, the women were consenting. He's being accused of having sex with women without a condom, whereas they claim he said he was wearing a condom. [editline]19th August 2012[/editline] He's just being accused of lying about wearing a condom to the women he had sex with.
[QUOTE=SataniX;37312684]Diplomatic car drives straight into a cargo plane? Would be one way of staying within a diplomatic vehicle.[/QUOTE] He would have to get into a car first. Regardless the plane would have to be given permission to be there.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;37313371]and you're gonna have to define rapist a bit more clearly there buddy it's not like assange chased down underaged women in a PCP induced haze and dragged them to his dungeon that he dug out of his mom's basement From what i understand his crimes come down to having sex with consenting women, then having sex with them in ways they didn't consent to so, yeah, complete asshole but not really worth breaking into the ecuadorian embassy[/QUOTE] You seem a bit too eager to jump on the "Assange is a asshole" considering that the women claiming him a rapist have dropped the claims and then suddenly claiming rape again. That, and Sweden has funny standards regarding what can be considered rape.
The entire charges in Sweden were dropped, then they suddenly get rid of the investigator and replace her with one who wants to ask more questions. Clearly fishy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.