Uk foreign office denis safe passage for Asssange

[Tutankhamun]

I have no doubs that Assange would not get a trial in the U.S and would be assasinated there very quickly. But, I think he should come to Sweden and face the charges brought against him here. There's nothing to suggest he wouldn't get a fair trail here. Legal experts have even suggested he'll most likely be freed of all charges here since it's a word against word situation. Even if he was found guilty the penalty wouldn't be terribly long.

[squirrelbo1]

This is wrong. International Policy dictates that you do not touch another nation's embassy. By default measure it is their land, and to set foot with government forces is to invade, to commit hostile action is to declare war. Even two countries at conflict do not touch each others embassies, and will even have their own officers protect it.

I'm really disappointed in how England is handling this situation. If a modern, bright European nation can't adhere to basic international law, then what does this do for the safety and intangibility of embassies around the globe? It can't be anything good.

The whole thing is bullshit anyways. Assange did nothing wrong, everything right. People need to realize that it's important for us to scrutinize the government. If we don't, they will rule us however they can.




Exactly. Assange would be picked up by US authorities at some point and he would be imprisoned without trial. He's a threat to whatever current credibility, and power, that the USA Government possess, and they're going to cut him out of the image as soon as they can.

Firstly UK not England. Secondly they are obviously under intense pressure from EU and probably America to resolve this. It's kind of catch 22 for us. Even so my initial post stands.


And yeah I agree with everything else you just said.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Fijiandoce]

Firstly UK not England. Secondly they are obviously under intense pressure from EU and probably America to resolve this. It's kind of catch 22 for us. Even so my initial post stands.


And yeah I agree with everything else you just said.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

technically, he's wanted in the UK too. by running to the Ecuador embassy he's violated his bail terms.
ergo, we want him also. he is our fugitive. Ecuador should have considered that he was already bound to UK law. they broke our laws first.

its funny how the US keeps getting brought up. we are more obliged to Sweden than the US.
chances are the US has asked the UK already and been turned down. very few extradition orders are accepted from the US(in the UK)

as an opt-out member on the European Union we are more inclined to agree with full members of the EU as it shows a willingness to cooperate. More so, UK is part of the European Court of Human Rights, this wouldn't sit well with them if he was given over.

Europe is the red tape center of the world! if you want to choke to death on politicking, legislature, or Policies then Europe is the place for you.

this whole debacle is farcical.
its sad that Ecuador decided to get involved.....derp

[Valefor]

This is wrong. International Policy dictates that you do not touch another nation's embassy. By default measure it is their land, and to set foot with government forces is to invade, to commit hostile action is to declare war. Even two countries at conflict do not touch each others embassies, and will even have their own officers protect it.

I'm really disappointed in how England is handling this situation. If a modern, bright European nation can't adhere to basic international law, then what does this do for the safety and intangibility of embassies around the globe? It can't be anything good.

The whole thing is bullshit anyways. Assange did nothing wrong, everything right. People need to realize that it's important for us to scrutinize the government. If we don't, they will rule us however they can.

Assange may not have done anything wrong, but as it stands he is wanted for questioning in Sweden. Ecuador, by granting Asylum, is trying to undermine this process. The very reason the UK may potentially enter the embassy is to uphold its responsibilities to international law (to Sweden, specifically). The right to enter the embassy would be allowed under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

[squirrelbo1]

Yeah we would be able to enter but it needs special permissions.

On the eu thing, yeah I.know we are bound to that order BUT I still think entering the embassy would be wrong.

Also regardless of whether we have a law that lets us go it or not. Ecuador can still view it as hostile. If say Iran entered a US embassy tomorrow based on a localised law there would be uproar.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Valefor]

Yeah we would be able to enter but it needs special permissions.

On the eu thing, yeah I.know we are bound to that order BUT I still think entering the embassy would be wrong.

Also regardless of whether we have a law that lets us go it or not. Ecuador can still view it as hostile. If say Iran entered a US embassy tomorrow based on a localised law there would be uproar.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Would allowing a country to undermine the lawful process of a person who is wanted for questioning, and has now broken the terms of his bail conditions, be more wrong than entering an embassy under lawful grounds?

Ecuador should not have got involved in this, it has only further complicated matters for Assange.

[keefy]

Using the 1987 diplomacy act to enter the embassy in these circumstances could be said its not what its use was intended for.
Entering the Embassy will also undermine all Emabssies world wide, alot rides on the decision to enter.

[Vulgotha]

Even under the pretense of that diplomacy act there would be massive backlash to the UK on the international scene if they were to do it.

@Tut

No, we would not assassinate him. Not on US soil if he were to ever get here. Maybe he is running for no reason, but I have a hard time believing this man would be so panicked about going to Sweden if he didn't have some reason to assume the US would try and get to him there.

[Tutankhamun]

@Tut

No, we would not assassinate him. Not on US soil if he were to ever get here. Maybe he is running for no reason, but I have a hard time believing this man would be so panicked about going to Sweden if he didn't have some reason to assume the US would try and get to him there.

Could it be he's guilty of the crimes he's accused for over here? The women that have pressed charges deserves a fair trail. He's allegedly fighting for justice but, clearly, he is not a supporter of justice for all.

He would not be turned over to the U.S by Sweden. We can't in accordance to EU laws.

[claud3]

Look he got want he wanted, now the case is how he gets out of the uk and gets to Ecuador without problems. This is the thing he faces now

[keefy]

It seems we are all in agreement.

[claud3]

Totally, this situation has no answer. Unless we seep the real truth behide why russia kept him in their true sightings

[Vulgotha]

Could it be he's guilty of the crimes he's accused for over here? The women that have pressed charges deserves a fair trail. He's allegedly fighting for justice but, clearly, he is not a supporter of justice for all.

He would not be turned over to the U.S by Sweden. We can't in accordance to EU laws.

And yet certain individuals, notably an ambassador from Australia, is certain that is just what will happen. That Sweden would hand over Assange to the US.

And no, I honestly have a hard time believing the 'convenient' charges filed against him from these women.

[Tutankhamun]

And yet certain individuals, notably an ambassador from Australia, is certain that is just what will happen. That Sweden would hand over Assange to the US.

And no, I honestly have a hard time believing the 'convenient' charges filed against him from these women.

Well, I'm sure an ambassador from Austraila are very familiar with Swedish and EU law.

I can believe the charges since he spent most of his time here hitting bars in Stockholm. He's a coward refusing to face his charges here. We have a good legal system and when entering our country he obliged to follow the law, not run from it.

[keefy]

Ecuador have had a poor track record of human rights and such in the past so they may be trying to rectify that by "interfering"

[*goo]

I'll need to find a source but I believe the main female instigator of the charges in Sweden has ties to the CIA. How's that for coincidence?

He's also only wanted for questioning, not to answer for 'crimes', yet Sweden has refused numerous requests to interview him at a location which is not Sweden.

I applaud Ecuador's decision. We have difficulty getting rid of known terrorists as a result of 'human rights' but will hand over a journalist who's currently committed no crime and is at real risk of danger in the blink of an eye.

Threatening to storm the embassy or revoke it's status only serves to further demonstrate the desperation of Britain to hand him over.


Obligatory Tapatalk Signature

[Morganator]

Well, I'm sure an ambassador from Austraila are very familiar with Swedish and EU law.

I can believe the charges since he spent most of his time here hitting bars in Stockholm. He's a coward refusing to face his charges here. We have a good legal system and when entering our country he obliged to follow the law, not run from it.

Wait. You were with him when he allegedly committed those crimes? Why haven't you spoken up about it, then?

[Vulgotha]

He's just dipping into his nationalistic fervor, let him carry on with it.

From what I read, though, apparently Manning was given Assange's private cell number (allegedly) and was instructed on what files to hand over later on. So this is good grounds for the espionage charge.

Still, I'm not so sure I oppose what Manning or Assange did. It's time for a little transparency on the world stage.

[Morganator]

He's just dipping into his nationalistic fervor, let him carry on with it.

From what I read, though, apparently Manning was given Assange's private cell number (allegedly) and was instructed on what files to hand over later on. So this is good grounds for the espionage charge.

Still, I'm not so sure I oppose what Manning or Assange did. It's time for a little transparency on the world stage.

Exposing government activities should not be grounds for espionage. This is the government throwing a tantrum because it was exposed with its pants down like Paris Hilton being exposed with her legs wide open. A little transparency is not enough. We need complete transparency.

[Tutankhamun]

Wait. You were with him when he allegedly committed those crimes? Why haven't you spoken up about it, then?

Where did I say that? Believe it or not, he was in the newspapers when he was in Sweden and they reported and took pictures of him at bars.

Assange is opposing coming to Sweden because he's not been guaranteed he won't be turned over to the U.S. The reason he has not been given that guarantee is because of Swedish constitutional laws the courts are independent and the government CAN NOT interfere with them in any way. They are free to make whatever decision they want without political interference. According to our Minister for Foreign Affairs the U.S HAVE NOT requested Assange to be turned over to the U.S at this point either.

He's just dipping into his nationalistic fervor, let him carry on with it.

No. I'm not. I was a big supporter of Wikileaks and Assange but the facts are facts. He is wanted for questioning here and he's running from it. This has NOTHING to do with the charges against him in the U.S. Nobody here gives a fuck about if he runs from the U.S. I just can't believe a man claiming to be fighting for the people against governments totally disregard women who deserve their case to be properly handled. He's a false prophet.

I have never, and will never, have any nationalistic fervor or patriotic feelings. I find the notion of being from countries silly. My view is that we're all from earth and sooner or later that's how we'll answer when someone ask us where we're from. It doesn't matter what landmass you happen to be born at.

[squirrelbo1]

Could it be he's guilty of the crimes he's accused for over here? The women that have pressed charges deserves a fair trail. He's allegedly fighting for justice but, clearly, he is not a supporter of justice for all.

He would not be turned over to the U.S by Sweden. We can't in accordance to EU laws.

I agree that it should face these charges but its only on questioning so he should be allowed to answer them via Skype interview.


And mate New Zealand shouldn't have handed Kim over to the US. But they did.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Tutankhamun]

I agree that it should face these charges but its only on questioning so he should be allowed to answer them via Skype interview.


And mate New Zealand shouldn't have handed Kim over to the US. But they did.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

I don't see why he should be any different than anyone else facing charges here.

[*goo]

Except he's not facing charges, yet. He's wanted for questioning. If it escalates to facing charges then he should absolutely be extradited (assuming there's no political motivations and it's a 'normal' case).

However, this whole situation isn't about what happened in Sweden. It's about the embarrassment the US Government faced which was publicised by Assange/Wikileaks. It's a means to an end. A way for the US to get Assange into their hands. For the US to exert power and influence through fear over journalists who would dare print something that makes them look bad.

There's far too much going on for this just to be about the allegations in Sweden, which if I'm not wrong; Sweden have failed to confirm - that he will not be extradited to the US if he goes anywhere near Sweden.

Then there's the issue of the accuser having US links. It's all very interesting...

Nobody seems to remember that the prime accuser of Julian Assange – Anna Ardin in Sweden – used to work for extreme anti-Castro publications funded by the CIA.

http://rt.com/news/assange-asylum-cold-war-883/

[Morganator]

Where did I say that? Believe it or not, he was in the newspapers when he was in Sweden and they reported and took pictures of him at bars.

Assange is opposing coming to Sweden because he's not been guaranteed he won't be turned over to the U.S. The reason he has not been given that guarantee is because of Swedish constitutional laws the courts are independent and the government CAN NOT interfere with them in any way. They are free to make whatever decision they want without political interference. According to our Minister for Foreign Affairs the U.S HAVE NOT requested Assange to be turned over to the U.S at this point either.

You don't have to say it for me to think it. You're already labeling him guilty as if you were there during these alleged acts. It's a simple case of deductive reasoning. And if you think the U.S. hasn't already applied political pressure to have him nabbed at the first convenience, you're mistaken. He WILL be nabbed the second he steps on Swedish soil or at the earliest convenience thereafter. I guarantee you he will. International laws and treaties means nothing to the U.S. government. Sweden's sovereignty will NOT be respected. Count on it.

[Completely Average]

Not sure if I believe that. Our government wants Assange bad and we have alot of weight to throw around.

You know, I've seen this false claim a thousand times. "The US wants Assange"


Bullshit. The US doesn't give a damn about Assange. The US has never charged Assange with any crime, there is no arrest warrant out for Assange in the US, there are no extradition requests, there isn't even a criminal investigation taking place.


So what makes you think the US wants Assange? Because HE said so? He'll say anything to keep from being sent back to Sweden. Fact is the US does NOT want Assange. If he came to the US he would be free to enter and travel as he wanted. (provided he takes care of that Sweden issue first) He's not even considered a suspect in a crime.


And if the US did want Assange then Ecuador would probably be among the worst places he could go to hide. Ecuador has had an extradition treaty in place with the US for over 150 years. The government of Ecuador relies on trade with the US for 80% of their GNP. And the CIA has a massive presence in Ecuador, which surely someone like Assange knows all about. If the US asked for Assange Ecuador wouldn't hesitate to hand him over. 3 months of US sanctions against that country would destroy their economy, and they know it. And even if they didn't hand them over, the CIA could easily just grab him.

Assange isn't hiding from the US by going to Ecuador. That's like trying to hide from a lion in the lions den.