UK threatens to enter the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest Wikileaks founder recently granted asylum in - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The UK has issued a "threat" to enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London to arrest Julian Assange, Ecuador's foreign minister has said. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623[/url] Mr Assange took refuge at the embassy in June to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over assault and rape claims, which he denies. Ricardo Patino also said a decision on the Wikileaks founder's asylum request would be made public on Thursday. The Foreign Office said it could revoke the embassy's diplomatic status. In a statement issued as Mr Patino spoke, it said the UK had a "legal obligation" to extradite Mr Assange. Meanwhile, a number of police officers are outside the embassy, in Knightsbridge. At a news conference in Quito on Wednesday night, Mr Patino said: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our Embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange. "Ecuador rejects in the most emphatic terms the explicit threat of the British official communication." 'Hostile act' He said such a threat was "improper of a democratic, civilized and rule abiding country". "If the measure announced in the British official communication is enacted, it will be interpreted by Ecuador as an unacceptable, unfriendly and hostile act and as an attempt against our sovereignty. It would force us to respond," he said. "We are not a British colony". A Foreign Office spokesman said the UK remained "determined" to fulfil its obligation to extradite Mr Assange. "Throughout this process have we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," the spokesman said. "We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution." The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. UK 'frustrated' It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange. The BBC's deputy political editor James Landale says the British government has been in long negotiations with Ecuador over the issue and has reminded it of the act. But he added that while the UK has been frustrated at the lack of a decision it is not about to raid the embassy. Even if Mr Assange is granted asylum, he will have to cross British territory and could be arrested, our correspondent said. On Monday, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa said a decision would be made this week after he held a meeting with his advisers. Mr Patino told reporters the decision had been made and an announcement would issued on Thursday morning, at 07:00 Ecuadorian time (13:00 BST). Final appeal Mr Assange's Wikileaks website published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments, particularly the US, in 2010. In 2010, two female ex-Wikileaks volunteers alleged that Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, had attacked them while he was in Stockholm to give a lecture. Mr Assange claims the sex was consensual and the allegations are politically motivated. The 41-year-old says he fears that if he is extradited to Sweden, he may be sent later to the US and could face espionage charges. In June, judges at the UK's Supreme Court dismissed his final appeal against extradition to Sweden. An offer to the Swedish authorities by Ecuador for investigators to interview Mr Assange inside the embassy, was rejected. [/QUOTE] I'm amazed.. thought the UK had taken a less aggressive stance on Assange from previous shit.. but guess not.. now threatening to raid a embassy.

fucking stupid

Yay, anglo-ecuadorien war :suicide:

You can't just 'raid an embassy'. If you do it's considered invading the territory of that country. What the UK may or may not do is remove the embassy rights and THEN raid the embassy. But what they are more likely to do (politically correct and less aggressive) is wait for him to leave the embassy (which he HAS to do to get out of the country) and then arrest him.

Read your own article before writing your title [quote]Ricardo Patino also said a decision on the Wikileaks founder's asylum request would be made public on Thursday.[/quote]

[QUOTE=smurfy;37258183]Read your own article before writing your title[/QUOTE] typo If a mod could fix it, thanks. Still, the title gets the point across and we will need to wait 19 hours to see if I'm right.

As a Briton, I sure as hell hope they don't do this...

[QUOTE=Blackfire76;37258154]You can't just 'raid an embassy'. If you do it's considered invading the territory of that country. What the UK may or may not do is remove the embassy rights and THEN raid the embassy. But what they are more likely to do (politically correct and less aggressive) is wait for him to leave the embassy (which he HAS to do to get out of the country) and then arrest him.[/QUOTE] Well, as far as I can tell they may be using a law that allows them to remove the embassy's rights and diplomatic immunity. Whether or not they feel they need to do so, or if its even necessary, remain to be seen,

why is the west trying to make a scapegoat out of assange, wikileaks can run almost entirely without his presence anyway

he should get a fair trial. sexual assault isn't something that should be taken lightly.

[QUOTE=Blackfire76;37258154]You can't just 'raid an embassy'. If you do it's considered invading the territory of that country. What the UK may or may not do is remove the embassy rights and THEN raid the embassy. But what they are more likely to do (politically correct and less aggressive) is wait for him to leave the embassy (which he HAS to do to get out of the country) and then arrest him.[/QUOTE]If they transport him in a diplomatic vehicle, he can't be touched. Diplomatic vehicles are considered extensions of their respective embassies and countries.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37258647]he should get a fair trial. sexual assault isn't something that should be taken lightly.[/QUOTE] The problem is that the people who he "raped" didn't even consider it rape until it was brought up.

[QUOTE=The mouse;37258707]The problem is that the people who he "raped" didn't even consider it rape until it was brought up.[/QUOTE] No, no they decided it was rape 2 years after they consensually fucked because reasons.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37258581]why is the west trying to make a scapegoat out of assange, wikileaks can run almost entirely without his presence anyway[/QUOTE] Because most of the time, the west is absolutely sure that a "problem" rests completely on the shoulders of one person. Hence the whole Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein fiascos. Everyone was convinced that killing or capturing Osama or Saddam would be the solution to the problems people were under the impression they caused, when in reality each of those problems weren't reliant on one person being alive. Same reason they arrested Kim Dotcom. The wikileaks "problem" is no exception to this school of thought.

Yo Cameron grow a fucking spine and stop riding the USA's mutated STD ridden penis

[QUOTE=Camundongo;37258531]Well, as far as I can tell they may be using a law that allows them to remove the embassy's rights and diplomatic immunity. Whether or not they feel they need to do so, or if its even necessary, remain to be seen,[/QUOTE] If they remove the embassy's rights over this charge, clearly there is some sort of pressure from another government to do so. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;37258662]If they transport him in a diplomatic vehicle, he can't be touched. Diplomatic vehicles are considered extensions of their respective embassies and countries.[/QUOTE] Good.

[QUOTE=The mouse;37258707]The problem is that the people who he "raped" didn't even consider it rape until it was brought up.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_The_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/08/AR2010090803240_2.html?sid=ST2010102206224[/url] [quote]But by the evening of Aug. 20, that all changed. Assange's host and a second woman appeared at Stockholm police headquarters to complain of his conduct, according to Karin Rosander, spokeswoman for the public prosecutor. According to reports circulating in Stockholm, Assange's host spoke about a sexual encounter Aug. 16 at her apartment in Stockholm that led to what the police qualified in a report as sexual harassment. The second woman alleged Assange had raped her Aug. 14, after the seminar, at her home in the nearby town of Enkoping, according to those who have seen the police report. Assange's host, whose name is known in Stockholm but which has not been published, in accordance with Swedish law governing sex crimes, said in an interview with Swedish journalists that she met the other woman at the seminar. When in a subsequent conversation she learned of the alleged rape, she told the reporters, she accompanied the Enkoping woman to lodge a report with police.[/quote] not only is that absolutely untrue, it's also irrelevant.

-My automerge.- [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;37258852]http://en.[B]wikipedia[/B].org/wiki/Assange_v_The_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority http://www.[B]washingtonpost[/B].com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/08/AR2010090803240_2.html?sid=ST2010102206224 not only is that absolutely untrue, it's also irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

Oh my God sometimes I just want to slap the fuck out of our country.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37258647]he should get a fair trial. sexual assault isn't something that should be taken lightly.[/QUOTE] The charge was bullshit, and if he gets caught you should be damn well sure that the US is going to railroad the trial.

I bet it's that fucking Theresa May again...

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37259215]The charge was bullshit[/QUOTE] that's up to the jury, not you

[QUOTE=thisispain;37259452]that's up to the jury, not you[/QUOTE] Where's the evidence for it? The unsupported claims of two women who probably knew that he was the founder of the site? Even if he did go to trial, it wouldn't be a fair one. I hope he leaves the country unscathed. I may be against government transparency, though the way the world is handling him is absolutely stupid. I don't want to see him end up like Bradley Manning.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37259522]Where's the evidence for it? [/QUOTE] you're not supposed to see the evidence that's how trials work [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37259522]The unsupported claims[/QUOTE] ugh you don't know shit about whether it's unsupported or not [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37259522]of two women who probably knew that he was the founder of the site?[/QUOTE] what are you implying there? [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37259522]Even if he did go to trial, it wouldn't be a fair one. I hope he leaves the country unscathed. I may be against government transparency, though the way the world is handling him is absolutely stupid. I don't want to see him end up like Bradley Manning.[/QUOTE] bradley manning was court-marshaled for espionage and abused. this dude is running away from a sexual assault case, how the fuck is there any comparison? against or for government transparency doesn't have shit to do with anything because this case is about sexual assault, not Wikileaks. we're creating this whole narrative around it that really has nothing to do with the actual charges. i compare this to the Roman Polanski case where everyone started talking about his movies as if making good movies gets you a get-out-of-jail-free card even though it had nothing to do with it. this is the same thing, Jullian Assange doesn't get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because he happens to be the founder of wikileaks.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;37258806]Because most of the time, the west is absolutely sure that a "problem" rests completely on the shoulders of one person. Hence the whole Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein fiascos. Everyone was convinced that killing or capturing Osama or Saddam would be the solution to the problems people were under the impression they caused, when in reality each of those problems weren't reliant on one person being alive. Same reason they arrested Kim Dotcom. The wikileaks "problem" is no exception to this school of thought.[/QUOTE] yeah but dotcom had an internet doomsday device

The point is that these charges certainly [i]appear[/i] to be politically motivated.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37259670] this is the same thing, Jullian Assange doesn't get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because he happens to be the founder of wikileaks.[/QUOTE] No one is making this claim when justifying why he should avoid prosecution. Its the fact that the charges are politically motivated and he will not receive an impartial trial/the punishment he will receive will not only be limited to sexual assault if charged. He will be extradited to the United States and will be punished inhumanely.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37258647]he should get a fair trial. sexual assault isn't something that should be taken lightly.[/QUOTE] This is what concerns me the most. What if he actually forced himself onto those women. I don't give a shit about him or his background, he needs to be questioned about the charges. There are laws in place and juridical processes that need to be considered before an extradition that couldn't possibly be ignored in his case. And the one to make a decision in that matter won't be politically affiliated.

[QUOTE=SataniX;37259952]The point is that these charges certainly [i]appear[/i] to be politically motivated.[/QUOTE] that's very easy to say, but what do you have to prove it? [editline]15th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;37260022]the punishment he will receive will not only be limited to sexual assault if charged. [/QUOTE] he's being extradited for sexual assault, nothing else. you can't just tack on extra charges onto a criminal lawsuit. [QUOTE=Starpluck;37260022]He will be extradited to the United States and will be punished inhumanely.[/QUOTE] well right now he's being extradited to Sweden so let's hold-off on any assumptions.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37259670]you're not supposed to see the evidence that's how trials work ugh you don't know shit about whether it's unsupported or not what are you implying there? bradley manning was court-marshaled for espionage and abused. this dude is running away from a sexual assault case, how the fuck is there any comparison? against or for government transparency doesn't have shit to do with anything because this case is about sexual assault, not Wikileaks. we're creating this whole narrative around it that really has nothing to do with the actual charges. i compare this to the Roman Polanski case where everyone started talking about his movies as if making good movies gets you a get-out-of-jail-free card even though it had nothing to do with it. this is the same thing, Jullian Assange doesn't get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because he happens to be the founder of wikileaks.[/QUOTE] Well, even if the sexual assault case is valid, he'll get it much worse than he should due to the issues with the US. The entire reason why I support his asylum is that the cases would be railroaded if he was extradited, and he'll end up abused and fucked by the US. And the allegations for assault are very much likely politically motivated. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] Ecuador could give him a trial without including the stupid political bullshit if they had the evidence and witnesses and such, but that isn't going to happen.