Uk foreign office denis safe passage for Asssange

[claud3]

uk foriegn office denis safe passage for assange, they say they will raid the ecuador embassy to prevent assange asylum plea. This is a direct fight with an independent country. I will keep up to date,

The direct violation of the rights of ecuador. So tensions will be high and the chances of the uk getting away with this is low. Decision is being made tomorrow on his asylum plea

Link to the rt.com site for any news you want to know about this and pluse assange's shows he made well under house arrest

http://assange.rt.com/

Link above is of assanges shows i watched on rt channel, all twelve shows

Rt.com link to the site for any futher news on the assange situation on his asylum pleas

www.rt.com

UPDATE on breaking news

The UK will do everything in its power to block Assange’s passage to Ecuador even if he is granted asylum by the nation’s government, officials said, claiming a legal obligation to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to Sweden.

UK authorities sparked a minor scandal when they announced they were prepared to raid the Ecuadorian embassy in London in order to apprehend Assange, effectively revoking the embassy’s diplomatic immunity.

The Ecuadorian foreign minister said that such an act would be interpreted as “hostile and intolerable,” and an attack on Ecuador’s sovereignty that would provoke a dramatic diplomatic response.

"We want to be very clear, we're not a British colony. The colonial times are over," Ecuadorian minister Ricardo Patino said following a meeting with President Rafael Correa.

Police arrest Assange sympathizers

Police cordoned off the area around the Ecuadorian embassy in London in an attempt to disperse WikiLeaks followers who had gathered to show their support for Assange.

Scuffles broke out between police and supports as officers surrounded them in an attempt to disperse them from the embassy premises.

Three Assange supporters were arrested in the struggle, wrote RT’s London correspondent.

Link: http://www.rt.com/news/assange-ecuador-uk-passage-823/

Their is a video there to, so you can understand or catch up on the current situation

Arrests at the embassy over the threat of the uk police to storm embassy

10:35 GMT: “I think that this point in time, other nations need to stand up and defend Ecuador's right to make this decision. They haven't even made the decision, they're being threatened. Imagine threatening to storm an embassy to this because they're protecting the rights of a journalist. We have to respect Ecuador's sovereignty, something that the UK might like to take on board. This is a serious decision. ” – Christine Assange, Julian Assange's mother, Brisbane, Australia.

10:34 GMT: Three protesters have been arrested following a brawl with London police.

10:14 GMT: Police have cleared the corner near the embassy that was occupied by Assange supporters. Earlier, Wikileaks activists and the Anonymous hacktivist group called on protesters to “flood” the street in front of the embassy.

http://www.rt.com/news/ecuador-decid...ange-fate-813/

More on the site for more info

Decision on assanges asylum plea, will be announced around 12:00 GMT to 1:00 GMT Time

Its been changed from friday to today, as this situation changes by the second. I guess a quick decision is on the cards for today

[F34R]

This would make a nice movie. lol

[claud3]

Lol, man thats a possible thing. Known america and others countries that will make a movies




UPDATE ON THE SITUATION AT THE ECUADOR AMBESSY

Moments away from decision on assanges asylum plea. Its still tense and the uk police ready to enter the Ecuador ambessy and with force take assange out. Its crazy, many arrested and more Ecuador people have turned up and have started shouting for assange and for the police to leave the ambessy alone. Since the two colation leaders are on holiday, william huge is in charge and he is the one signed aproval for the police to storm the ambessy... many are calling for him to resigne if they follow through on this threat

UPDATE ON ASSANGE SITUATION
decision up and a statement is being read out by Ecuador foreign minister... the strongly reject any force by uk police and foreign office. Minister states that relationship with the uk is at risk and we have a decision on assange and we choose to side with

[keefy]

Extracting Assange couldhave consequences for other Embassies accross the globe especially British.

Put an E in the denis will you.

[Fijiandoce]

Ecuador are being played.

[claud3]

UPDATE

Ecuador has choosen to give assange asylum and he is in Ecuadors hands now. So what next and how will the foreign office react to the decision

ASSANGE GETS ASYLUM IN ECUADOR

This is the start of something different. We will have to see whats next and how the british are going to handle this situation... police have a choice to enter or not, deny the request from william hague, or storm the embassy and forcefully arrest him and cause more tensions with Ecuador

[Fijiandoce]

Ecuador, u r now the western countries lap dog.

"Human Rights""Human Rights""Human Rights""Human Rights""Human Rights""Human Rights"
they use this term, yet i don't think they fully understand the ramifications.

Julian Assange is wanted for violating another persons human rights.
these countries wont give guarantees because they are, as even they said, "democratic countries" and he needs to pass through the system like any other pleb.

harboring fugitives in a democratic country is LOL. especially when that country is the UK. or Europe. there is enough Red tape to kill a full grown Sun.
EU is not the US.
the likelihood of him reaching the US was about 1%. EU courts would be all over this case.

p.s i really dont care one way or another.

ecuador might have gained positive public relations/reputation. but politically they've taken a step back.

[claud3]

Me, i cared back 4 months ago, i posted this for others that were interested in this. I done this for the members here.

So me personally i do not care. I agree he did wrong, but its wrong to kill a person for revealing the truth

[keefy]

No country should give him asylum because he isnt in danger he sint going to be killed if goes back to Sweden.

[Vulgotha]

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

[btbam]

They don't even need to raid the embassy. He has to leave in order to fly there. Just nab him when he pulls out.

[claud3]

That is what they were hoping from the start. So maybe they will get that chance

[keefy]

Q&A: Julian Assange and asylum

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who is facing extradition from the UK to Sweden over rape and sexual assault allegations, has been given asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in London. What happens next?

What does Julian Assange want?

Mr Assange entered the Ecuadorean embassy in London seeking political asylum.

Mr Assange fears that if he is sent to Sweden it may lead to him being sent on to the US to face charges relating to Wikileaks, for which he says he could face the death penalty.

However, the European Court of Human Rights would not allow an extradition to a country where someone faces capital punishment.

Nations that are signatories to the 1951 Convention on Refugees are obliged to consider whether there is a real risk the person could be killed or seriously injured if they were handed over to another authority.

Ecuador granted political asylum on 16 June.

Who can claim asylum?

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."

Typically, asylum is claimed by someone who arrives at the border of a country which they hope will protect them. But in this case, Julian Assange sought "diplomatic asylum".

That basically means seeking protection outside the borders of a country by going to one of its diplomatic missions.

How can Julian Assange claim asylum?

The general definition of a refugee is someone with a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion" in their home country.

Mr Assange's supporters argue he faces persecution for his political opinions - but it's a real uphill struggle to prove he faces persecution in his native Australia. Ecuador said he had a well-founded fear and that his own country had failed to protect him.

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which both the UK and Ecuador have ratified, says that its protections do not apply to "any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that… he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee".

The allegations faced by Mr Assange in Sweden are sexual assault and rape - serious non-political crime.

Has Julian Assange broken the law in the UK?

When Sweden issued its European Arrest Warrant, judges in the UK granted Julian Assange bail on strict conditions while the case was being considered.

Julian Assange breached that bail by entering the embassy, making him liable for arrest. The Met is maintaining its position that it will arrest him as soon as it can.

So why can't police arrest Julian Assange at the embassy?

Throughout the world, local police and security forces are not permitted to enter an embassy unless they have the express permission of the ambassador - even though the embassy remains the territory of the host nation.

This rule was set out in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which codified the "rule of inviolability". It is a rule that all nations observe because it is in their interests to do so - if they enter someone else's embassy, their own diplomatic missions are put at risk of similar activity elsewhere.

Therefore, the Foreign Office has said that by being at the embassy, Mr Assange is on diplomatic territory and beyond the reach of police.

However, on 15 August, it emerged that the Foreign Office had reminded Ecuador that it had the power to revoke the embassy's diplomatic status under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

This would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange.

But aren't all embassies protected from interference?

Yes - but the 1987 act, creating the power to revoke the status of a diplomatic mission, was passed by Parliament in the wake of the Libyan embassy crisis three years before, when PC Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead with a bullet fired from inside the embassy.

Ministers said they needed powers to revoke an embassy's status where the mission was not being used for a proper purpose connected to diplomacy.

The then Foreign Office Minister, Baroness Young, told the Lords at the time that the government had in mind a situation where a mission "was being used... in support of terrorist activity". In other words, the power was needed for exceptional circumstances.

Even if there was a viable legal argument to interfere in an embassy, there are still political considerations. Taking such a step might set a dangerous precedent by encouraging governments in other parts of the world to feel justified in claiming that dissidents seeking diplomatic asylum, but also facing criminal charges, were in foreign embassies illegally and could be forcibly removed from the premises.

Would revoking the embassy's status over Mr Assange be lawful?

That would be for the courts to decide.

If Ecuador challenged a revocation, ministers would have to argue at the High Court that the mission, by harbouring Mr Assange, had fallen foul of international law and they had the right to take action. The government used the power in 1988 to deal with squatters at the Cambodian embassy.

The key 1961 convention underpinning all diplomatic immunity stresses that missions must respect local laws and, in no circumstances, interfere in the host nation's internal affairs.

Now he is granted asylum, can he leave the embassy?

Metropolitan Police officers are waiting outside and they have the power and right to arrest Mr Assange for breach of bail if he steps outside.

Officers have also delivered a letter to the embassy demanding that Mr Assange surrender himself.

Could he be entitled to any form of protection from arrest?

Some people have speculated that Ecuador could give Julian Assange some kind of diplomatic or UN representative status as a means of providing him with immunity - but the Metropolitan Police have arrested numerous diplomats down the years - particularly for drink-driving.

However, diplomats can escape prosecution because of general diplomatic immunity.

So in practical terms could he get out?

Assuming Julian Assange evaded arrest outside the embassy, he could get into a diplomatic car. These vehicles enjoy protection in international law from "search, requisition, attachment and execution".

That could lead to the curious legal position of the Met having the power to stop the car - but no power to search it for Julian Assange.

Even if he got away, at some point he would have to get out of it into an aircraft - at which point the risk of arrest would return.

Could he be taken out of the embassy in a container?

There are strict rules relating to "diplomatic bags" which are designed to allow countries to bring their documents in and out of a host nation. Diplomatic bags can be any size that the country wants them to be and they cannot be opened or detained in transit.

But the law says they are for official materials, so it is difficult to see how Julian Assange could be put in a crate and shipped out - not least because the British authorities would have a fairly clear idea what was in the box.

Could Julian Assange stay in the embassy indefinitely?

Some asylum seekers have spent a great deal of time within embassy compounds. The longest-known case is that of Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty. He spent 15 years in the US embassy in Budapest following the Soviet crackdown in 1956 in Hungary. He later made it to Austria.

Source

[Vulgotha]

I'm not so sure Assange himself is really guilty of anything. First of all, he's not a US national, secondly he only published information that was given to him correct?

It isn't like he himself or his group 'hacked' into the DOD or something and stole the files. Whistle blowers and private citizens who supported his movement did.

[Tutankhamun]

I'm not so sure Assange himself is really guilty of anything. First of all, he's not a US national, secondly he only published information that was given to him correct?

It isn't like he himself or his group 'hacked' into the DOD or something and stole the files. Whistle blowers and private citizens who supported his movement did.

That's the thing though. He's not up for trail in Sweden for releasing any information about anythinng. He's on wanted for trial here for sexual assault and rape charges.

His fear is that Sweden will turn him over to U.S authorities if he's convicted in Sweden for his charges here to be tried in the U.S for the charges against him there - related to Wikileaks.

According to Swedish law experts though we can't legally hand him over to the U.S because of the death penalty which we do not have here.

[claud3]

Assange has set a path he must go down now, how wil he live his life and does he really understand Ecuador government. To prelong his show

[admartian]

This is all a big mess.

Somehow, I feel like a rouse of Oceans' 11/12/13 or a Guy Ritchie movie, proportions is about to happen. I wonder if embassies have secret passages...

[claud3]

Do you believe him or the governments that are after him. Do you actually care at all

[Mael Duin]

[squirrelbo1]

I'm not so sure Assange himself is really guilty of anything. First of all, he's not a US national, secondly he only published information that was given to him correct?

It isn't like he himself or his group 'hacked' into the DOD or something and stole the files. Whistle blowers and private citizens who supported his movement did.

Kim dotcom hasn't done anything wrong yet he was raided like he was a terrorist.


I really hope we don't send police into the embassy because that's essentially a declaration of war. They would be well within their rights internally to respond with maximum force. Also think how apeshit we would go if Ecuador sent police into a British embassy.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Rapture]

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.

No country should give him asylum because he isnt in danger he sint going to be killed if goes back to Sweden.

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

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.

[admartian]

Is England right now succumbing to America's (govt - not people, lest people be offended ) buthurt teet?

Just asking.

[keefy]

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.

He has been in the UK for how long? IF the USA wanted him that badly they could have easily done what Sweden did and apply for extradition but USA has not.

[Rapture]

He has been in the UK for how long? IF the USA wanted him that badly they could have easily done what Sweden did and apply for extradition but USA has not.

The US doesn't do so because Assange wouldn't be given a fair trial on his arrival.

[Morganator]

The US doesn't do so because Assange wouldn't be given a fair trial on his arrival.

What trial. Assange would be labeled a terrorist and enemy combatant and thus, held indefinitely without trial. The government would then have him murdered at the earliest convenience.