

UK threaten to enter Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Julian Assange - Simon_M
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

======
tokenadult
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.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher>

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.

AFTER EDIT:

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).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government#Earlier_civilian_executions)

[http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...](http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00076.htm)

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.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies#American...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_spies#Americans_convicted_of_spying_for_foreign_countries)

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.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Flo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Florence_ADX#Inmate_population)

~~~
guelo
Since 9/11 the USA has shown that it does not follow the civil rules of law
for non-citizens. Obama's DOJ has convened a secret grand jury investigating
Assange under the Espionage Act[1]. Joe Biden has called him a terrorist [2].
Others have called for his assassination [3]. Sweden was involved in the CIA's
illegal rendition program and sent people to be tortured in Egypt[4]. Assange
has every reason to fear for his life.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/11...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html)

[2] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-
tec...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-
terrorist-biden)

[3] [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-
wikileaks_in...](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-
wikileaks_in_security/t/assange-lawyer-condemns-calls-assassination-wikileaks-
founder/)

[4] [http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-
torture-b...](http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-
cia-rendition)

~~~
GHFigs
_Obama's DOJ has convened a secret grand jury investigating Assange under the
Espionage Act._

All grand jury proceedings are secret. This is a normal part of the US legal
system.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_Stat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States)

~~~
brl
but not all of the subpoenas are secret, certainly is it rare for them to
include NSLs (as Appelbaum has indicated the FBI hinted) and rarely if never
are the dockets themselves sealed (as Appelbaum's lawyer is currently
fighting)

------
belorn
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.

------
mindcrime
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??

~~~
philwelch
I can't remember another time when a country used the diplomatic immunity of
their embassy to harbor a fugitive from rape charges. We're in fairly
uncharted territory.

~~~
mkramlich
there are no rape charges. rape != sexual assault. and one could argue that
"sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own
will is not rape, certainly. also there are no charges. merely an accusation.
and they merely want to "question" him, which of course they could do easily
without forcing him to go to Sweden. The whole thing is a pretty blatant sham,
a masquerade for some other goal of theirs.

~~~
philwelch
> and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already
> in bed with you by her own will is not rape, certainly

If one was a misogynist who thought women lost their basic human rights as
soon as their clothes were off, one could certainly argue that.

~~~
mkramlich
if one were a rude asshole, one would make the comment you just made

~~~
philwelch
The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the
right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent is pure
misogyny. It outright justifies rape. I'm not going to give you a pass on
making comments like that out of politeness. Ideas like that need to be called
out for what they are.

~~~
mkramlich
> The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the
> right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent

I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.

> It outright justifies rape.

I never said that. Quote me where I said that. Again, you can't.

I'm very careful with my wording. You are probably falling into the trap of
getting emotional about something that wasn't said, something that lives only
in your own mind. Unfortunately this is one of those topics that never fails
to draw people out who commit that kind of mistake.

Also, I'd love to meet you sometime for a friendly coffee somewhere. Always
good to meet fellow HN'ers, and as a bonus we can clear up any
misunderstandings.

~~~
philwelch
> I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.

I never claimed you did say that. But you introduced the notion as something
"one could argue", and the only thing I'm attacking is that notion, not you
personally. That's more than you can say for yourself, incidentally.

That you _took_ it personally says far more about you than it does me. When
one puts forward a notion on the basis of "one could argue", sometimes it
means it's a notion they're not especially attached to but they think is
worthy of consideration. Other times, it means they're evading personal
criticism for believing in that notion. In the first case, one would not feel
so worked up and personally attacked by having the notion criticized; in the
second case, they would. Your reaction, I'm afraid, has given you away.

~~~
Steko
"But you introduced the notion as something"

You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them.
You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said
was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly
what it says.

~~~
philwelch
In context, the notion put forward is this: it's arguably not rape to have
unprotected sex with someone who refuses consent to have unprotected sex with
you, as long as you've already got them naked and in bed with you. I'm not
sure you can classify that notion as a harmless technicality. And if you leave
out the part about the woman _refusing consent_ , then it's a non-sequitur
anyway.

------
guelo
The series of tweets from <https://twitter.com/abcnews> (Australian
Broadcasting Corp):

\- #Breaking Wikileaks founder Julian Assange granted asylum in Ecuador

\- #BREAKING: British Government won't guarantee Julian Assange safe passage
to airport to leave for Ecuador #assange

\- Clarification - Ecuador wants to give Assange asylum, but Britain is
refusing to grant safe passage #breaking #wikileaks

\- Ecuador Foreign Minister says they received a letter from British govt
threatening to enter embassy & arrest Assange if he's not handed over

------
objclxt
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:

[http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-
the...](http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/08/15/julian-assange-can-the-uk-
withdraw-diplomatic-status-from-the-ecuadorian-embassy/)

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.

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 _possibly_ deny this.

 _Maybe_ , just _maybe_ 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.

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.

~~~
vidarh
For starters, the women did not make these accusations. A prosecutor have.

This distinction is worth making. At no point did these women go to the police
and claim that Assange had raped them - not even the Swedish prosecution has
made the claim they did. They did go to the police and ask questions that
someone at the police then decided to interpret as indicating that a crime
might have taken place, and start an investigation.

They then were interviewed, in situations that subsequent reports indicate may
have been blatant violations of police procedure - no recording was apparently
made, one of the police officers involved was allegedly a friend of one of the
witnesses.

The results were statements that have not been formally released, nor been
verified or scrutinized by anyone independent.

What is allegedly the police reports were on the other hand illegally leaked
to a Swedish newspaper, and Assanges name was confirmed by authorities in
conjunction with the case in blatant violation of Swedish police procedures.
But we don't even know if the leaked police reports are accurate or final
copies.

Subsequent to the investigation, the first prosecutor to get involved in the
case looked at the police reports and decided they indicated that no crime had
taken part.

What is allegedly descriptions supported by the contents of these statements
was then used in the arrest warrants formulated by a second prosecutor that
stepped in in a highly unusual move and reopened the investigation.

The reasons for why she stepped in to reopen just this case, despite how
unusual it is to do so when another prosecutor has closed the case, has not at
any point been explained.

In retrospect, it is now also being alleged that one of the women is refusing
to sign statements about the case at all.

In other words, so far we don't even know what the women actually said to the
police.

What we know is the content of a highly unusual and highly illegal leak to a
Swedish newspaper, and how one prosecutor has chosen to interpret their words
in an arrest warrant written with the express purpose of ensuring that a UK
court would extradite Assange to the UK.

We do know one prosecutor found the police investigation had not found any
evidence that any crime had taken place at all, and another found it did. We
do know there are a lot of open questions about how the statements were
collected, and about lack of documentation. We do have reason to question
whether at least one of the women is willing to put her name behind the police
interpretation of what she said. We don't know whether they made any actual
allegations that amount to any crimes.

Maybe it is all accurate, and perhaps he is guilty. But it isn't even remotely
clear whether or not there even should be a case to answer.

> They may not be true, but the truthfulness of the allegations is outside the
> scope of an extradition.

That is true, and it is not surprising that UK courts ordered the extradition.

But the real issue here is also not whether there is a genuine reason for a UK
court to approve an extradition, but whether or not there is something going
on that gives reason to be concerned that these accusations are not the full
story.

Especially in a case where the Swedish prosecution have had a year or so to
interview him in London, yet have chosen not to while claiming they can't. At
the same time, somehow Swedish police has been able to go off to Poland to
interview two suspected Polish murderers about a double homicide.

So either Swedish police has just risked messing up a double homicide case, or
the Swedish prosecutor in the Assange case is at best misinformed about
something she ought to know about, at worst being intentionally deceptive.

Even if we don't buy the US extradition idea, this is still a strange
situation. The argument that they somehow need him on Swedish soil is nonsense
- Swedish police provably regularly conduct interviews outside of Sweden, and
you can provably be charged and tried in absentia in Sweden, despite many
claims to the contrary.

So why does the Swedish prosecutor resist taking up evidence in a rape case
for a year while making claims about why she is not that can not be supported
by fact?

~~~
thebigshane
You seem to bringing up a lot of new information about this case that I didn't
know, so I have to ask: citations?

------
mkramlich
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.

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 _other_ 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.

~~~
youngtaff
Since when has the 'accused' had the right to tell law enforcement agencies
when and where they may be questioned?

~~~
delinka
Without charges (i.e. being placed under arrest) he has every right to freedom
of movement. Ergo he can answer (or not answer) questions wherever he damn
well pleases. If that's so inconvenient for law enforcement, charge the fucker
and arrest him.

I don't understand why it's gotten to this point- you charge and arrest him
... or GTFO.

~~~
eurleif
He was arrested, and his extradition was ordered. Then he sought asylum with
the Ecuadorian embassy. That's what this is about.

~~~
delinka
Had he remained under arrest, how could he have sought asylum with some other
embassy?

"Mr. Copper, I've decided to seek asylum with the Ecuadorian embassy..."
"Well, Mr. Assange, I sure hate to see you go but I guess I'll drive you there
myself."

~~~
eurleif
He had been released on bail, pending an appeal, which he lost.

~~~
delinka
Apparently something is missing here. How did he get from being in custody to
seeking asylum in an embassy? Somewhere along the way he was _not_ in custody.
Why was he not in the custody of law enforcement? They had no reason to hold
him? He was out on bail? If he was out on bail, lost an appeal, why didn't he
return to custody?

If they didn't want him walking around (where he could claim asylum in an
embassy) then he should have been in custody. If he wasn't in custody, there
must have been a reason he wasn't. Sounds to me like they (law enforcement)
screwed up and they're now trying to blame an Ecuadorian ambassador.

------
billswift
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.

~~~
arrrg
Or he is someone who flees from serious charges and the British authorities
don’t want to look like idiots in front of the whole world because they can’t
do something simple like extradite him.

Why is there this willingness to believe everything this idiot says? He’s a
pompous ass, pure and simple. No conspiracy required.

Meanwhile the idea of an anonymous leaks platform dies because everyone
focuses on his stupid antics.

~~~
naner
He is a pompous ass and so is Kim Dotcom. The problem is that the charges
against each of them appear to be completely exaggerated or made up[1].

1: <http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4280532>

~~~
mootothemax
That's a biased source being discussed there, along with some wishful and
imaginative thinking about what various interpol notices indicate.

------
_delirium
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.

~~~
cjensen
The difference is that Assange did not simply ask for asylum. He agreed to go
through the British Court system including posting bail under the solemn
promise to obey the court.

Only when he lost did he go for asylum. Sincere asylum is not "Plan B."

~~~
_delirium
That part, jumping bail by walking into an embassy, isn't all that unusual.
China is worried enough about it that they sometimes shadow politically
sensitive detainees who're out on bail to make sure they don't get close to
any western embassies in Beijing.

~~~
cjensen
Do the Chinese who might seek asylum also wait until the Court rules against
them?

~~~
_delirium
I assume that would be a common trigger! Until that point, they may hope to be
acquitted and not have to flee the country. For example, Chen Guangcheng
escaped house arrest and fled to the U.S. embassy. The Chinese were not happy
about that, and applied pressure, but they didn't send police into the
embassy.

~~~
cjensen
Chen was neither charged with a crime nor was he serving a sentence at the
time he fled.

~~~
bwilson
And neither is Assange, on both counts.

~~~
cjensen
There was no warrant or ongoing court case either.

------
x03
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].

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.

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.

1: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides>

~~~
Steko
"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. "

Let's analyze this a bit further...

Next time a British citizen holes up in the British embassy over some sham
charges at the hands of the local police what are the likely aftershocks of
Britain bullying Ecuador over Assange.

------
youngtaff
About time we started applying the pressure...

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?

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'

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?

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.

~~~
vidarh
If he IS guilty, and knows that this isn't politically motivated, then why
doesn't he go back to Sweden?

The worst possible sentence he is likely to get under Swedish law is so short
that he'd likely have been out by now, after serving in a low security prison
of a standard better than many British hotel rooms.

If he ISN'T guilty, then he has every reason to be concerned over the bizarre
situations surrounding this case, such as why one prosecutor dismissed the
case as obviously nothing criminal, only for another prosecutor with a known
history for being aggressive about these types of cases to jump in an pick it
up in a pretty unheard of move, and with the long list of other irregularities
in the case, combined with Marianne Ny (the prosecutor)'s long standing
refusal to consider interviewing him in London - a move that is pretty
shocking given how they continue to expend resources in this case and insist
it is so serious.

It is quite possible that the US has nothing to do with it, but _something_ is
fishy in the way the Swedish prosecution is handling this. Maybe it's not a US
desire to extradite him, but "just" a prosecutor out to make her name with a
politically motivated case where the target is Swedish rape law, not Assange -
if it is he'd surely be a perfect target. But if I was him and I was innocent,
I'd resist extradition too.

Of course, it is possible he's guilty but at the same time paranoid about the
US - just pointing out that it is not a given that staying away from Sweden in
these circumstances imply guilt. On the contrary, there are plenty of reasons
for someone to be more wary about going back if not guilty in this case.

> 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'

Law enforcement _frequently_ opt to interview suspects in situations less than
ideal when the choice is to not be able to interview them at all, or to have
the interviews delayed.

Consider that _if_ there is a case to answer - something that is not clear, as
no charges have been filed (Assange is wanted for arrest for questioning on
suspicion, not charged; the distinction keeps confusing British media, who is
not used to the Scandinavian justice systems) -, then every day that goes
makes any testimony that is collected less likely to be considered reliable by
the court, and it is also clearly not in the interest of the alleged victims
either to have the situation drag on without knowing whether or not the case
will move forward.

This is _also_ , despite the protestations of the Swedish prosecutor, commonly
the case in Sweden. As many has pointed out, Sweden recently sent people to
Poland to interview two people arrested on suspicion of a brutal double
homicide, prior to an extradition hearing in Poland under an EAW.

Yet somehow they keep claiming they couldn't possibly do this in the Assange
case, even going so far as to claim that Swedish law and court procedures
won't allow it. This is another one of those things that makes the Assange
case stink a long way, whether the US is involved in any way or not.

> 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?

How easy is it? McKinnon has been able to avoid extradition for 10 years now,
despite a pretty clear cut case of hacking that is clearly illegal in both
countries. As it turns out, while UK judges will honour UK obligations, they
are also highly scrupulous about ensuring all arguments are heard, and the UK
government seems unwilling to try an end-run around the legal process.

Meanwhile, Sweden has been censured by the UN for participating in rendition
of at least two people in blatant violation of not only internatonal
obligatons, but also of Swedish law.

~~~
youngtaff
Yeh, but McKinnon may well be mentally ill. Look at the Natwest Bankers, the
guys with the battery for other cases where it happened fairly quickly

------
Simon_M
It appears under UK law the Prime Minister could denounce the embassy as no
longer Ecuadorian territory.

The UK government has 'reminded' Ecuador of this fact in an attempt to
influence their decision.

~~~
alan_cx
Presumably Ecuador could respond in kind.

It may well be that the wonderful British police or SAS could smoothly extract
Assange, however, what happens if the not so wonderful Ecuadorian authorities
decided to lay some sort of siege to the British Embassy in Ecuador? Are
British authorities really prepared to risk that?

~~~
cjensen
If Ecuador did that, the British would simply leave peaceably. I'm not
understanding the risk you refer to -- would not Ecuadorians be equally
hindered by the lack of a British Embassy as the British?

~~~
Old_Faithful
Well then, if that was the case then Assange could just as well peacefully
with the rest of the Ecuadorian delegation.

Don't forget that Assange is not and asylum "seeker" anymore, but that he has
in fact been granted asylum. In other words, under international law, he is
and Ecuadorian Citizen and unless Britain decides to transgress International
Law and effectively declare war on Ecuador, no amount of sabre rattling will
amount to anything at all.

------
jakeonthemove
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).

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...

------
cobrausn
Did anyone not see this coming? Does he actually think they won't go after him
to the full extent they are capable?

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.

Good luck, Julian, you completely unlikable but necessary bastard. Hopefully
the people who carry on in your stead are a bit more careful.

~~~
fleitz
If you walk away with your life you're by definition not a martyr.

~~~
cobrausn
Nitpicking. People are often called 'martyr for a cause' if they end up
persecuted or imprisoned.

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr>

Definition #2. It helps if you die, but it's not required.

------
AManWithOpinion
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.

~~~
koski
I undertood that because the event (shooting + aftermatch) happened, the
"Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987" was created. Which is now used by
Brittish government.

------
mootothemax
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?"

~~~
AngrySkillzz
General opinion seems to think that he'll be questioned in Sweden and then
extradited to the US, likely to sit in solitary confinement a la Bradley
Manning. Now I'm not saying one way or the other, but it is definitely a
possibility.

~~~
barking
Why would Sweden be more likely to extradite to the USA than the UK? Sweden is
neutral whereas the UK is a USA ally.

~~~
AngrySkillzz
I agree that it isn't sensible necessarily, but I also don't blame him for
believing it may happen. The US has taken a surprisingly cavalier attitude to
the rights of citizens and foreign nationals as of late.

------
dj2stein9
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.

~~~
Old_Faithful
When was there even any doubt about it? Britain has been aligned with US
imperialism for decades.

------
nickperry
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.

~~~
mike-cardwell
So countries should only respond to requests for asylum when they themselves
benefit from it?

The _only_ thing that they should be looking at, is whether or not his case
for asylum is valid under their rules.

~~~
nickperry
Touche

------
julianz
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.

~~~
elemeno
It's not an act of war - it's, at worst, a violation of a convention. An
embassy/consulate/mission is the territory of the host country and not, as is
commonly thought, sovereign to the country who's located in it.

~~~
Old_Faithful
You are mistaken. Under International law, embassies are on sovereign soil of
the guest country.

------
ditoa
This case continues to amaze me.

It is like a movie not real life.

------
Zenst
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.

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.

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.

RIP Yvonne Fletcher, justice was slow, but we do get there.

~~~
cyrus_
Based on Twitter chatter, Anonymous is indeed gathering supporters in Britain
outside the Ecuadorian embassy as we speak.

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

------
andyl
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.

------
rizla
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.

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

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

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

------
Tycho
Absolute disgrace.

------
cypherpunks01
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:

<http://twitter.com/alburyj> <http://www.bambuser.com/channel/alburyj>

------
thom
What appears to be the text of the communication:

[http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/201...](http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/banners/2012/carta-
britanica.pdf)

