nomoss Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Why shouldn't Britain enter the Ecuadorean Embassy?After all, the Iranians took over the American Embassy in Teheran[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward Trunk Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Because it would encourage tit-for-tat measures in Ecuador, and possibly endanger the lives of our diplomats there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 [quote user="nomoss"]Why shouldn't Britain enter the Ecuadorean Embassy?After all, the Iranians took over the American Embassy in Teheran[:D][/quote]Because it goes against all normal diplomatic conventions. Britain along most other countries loudly condemned the occupation of the US embassy in Teheran so for Britain to do the same would be seen as gross hipocracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted August 17, 2012 Author Share Posted August 17, 2012 [quote user="Edward Trunk"]Because it would encourage tit-for-tat measures in Ecuador, and possibly endanger the lives of our diplomats there.[/quote]Oh. Mr Hague didn't mention that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted August 17, 2012 Author Share Posted August 17, 2012 [quote user="Rabbie"][quote user="nomoss"] Why shouldn't Britain enter the Ecuadorean Embassy?After all, the Iranians took over the American Embassy in Teheran[:D][/quote]Because it goes against all normal diplomatic conventions. Britain along most other countries loudly condemned the occupation of the US embassy in Teheran so for Britain to do the same would be seen as gross hipocracy[/quote] Oh. He didn't mention that, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 They must not do that, they must not enter the embassy under any circumstances. Each country must have a safe haven in the country where there diplomats are. I don't know why they don't send a huge piece of furniture back to Ecudor sealed as a diplomatic package, there is no limit on the size of these things and he could just get out and onto a plane like that. No country has the right to open diplomatic packages either.I am not in agreement with every aspect of diplomatic immunity though, but that would take lots of negociating to change. Someone made a huge mistake in sending that letter and I hope have been duly flogged and put in the stocks for gross negligence and stupidity....... or better still sack 'em and no civil service pension[I] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardian Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 No to crashing in to the Embassy and the only problem it gives me is the cost of policing outside the door round the clock.Having said that, I don't really have a say in that because I'm no longer a UK taxpayer.Still .............. it won't stop me saying this:What is the 'stake' that the Ecuadorians have in this? It is suggested fair play and all that, but I don't buy it. There's more to it.Who cares? There are 100x more important things and people tragedies happening in the world apart from this character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 I ask myself, as Assange is on Ecuadorian territory, why aren't the Swedes dealing with Ecuador?Does anyone really believe the US aren't putting pressure on Sweden and the UK?How long before the US put economic and political pressure on Ecuador to make them cave?As for Iran and the storming of the US embassy, does the UK really want that sort of comparison? Can you imagine the UK government's reaction if the Russian government suddenly decided to revoke the immunity of the UK embassy, marched in to arrest someone who'd taken refuge there, then re-instated the immunity until next time...?Once that precedent is established, where does the police stop? Is this how "civilised" countries like the UK, Sweden or the US wants to be seen dealing with one another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araucaria Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Anyone else remember Cardinal Mindszenty - 15 years political asylum in the US embassy in Budapest?As the chances are that Assange is condemning himself to a long period of effective house arrest in the Ecuadorean embassy, he might have chosen a country with a slightly larger embassy to give himself a bit more personal space.The 1987 act that Hague's officials are quoting was probably introduced to deal with the ruinous state of the Iranian embassy after the (1980) seige and SAS raid: it caught fire and remained derelict for years. But as it was diplomatic property nothing could be done about it. The act was hardly designed to winkle political refugees from legitimate embassies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardener Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Julian Assange has been at that embassy for a couple of months now and no secret was made of the fact he was trying to claim asylum, yet I hadn't seen such a high profile police presence there before the last couple of days. It is also only now that asylum has been granted that the UK legal beagles, media and Government officials are saying that it cannot be granted as he does not fit the criteria.I am a fan of wikileaks but not so much Mr Assange and I feel he should face the music re the alleged offences he has been accused of. However, whilst I can't escape the thought that the same fate awaits him as Bradley Manning, I don't understand why if the US do want him they don't apply via the UK especially when the extradition treaty the UK has with the US is loaded in their favour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickP Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 [quote user="Araucaria"]The act was hardly designed to winkle political refugees from legitimate embassies.[/quote] Assange is not a political refugee, he is someone trying to dodge a trial in Sweden for sexual assault. If he is not guilty as he claims; then he should go back to Sweden and face the courts as any normal citizen does. After all Sweden is one of the more liberal countries in the world and doesn't have a third world country reputation for torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 [quote user="NickP"]Assange is not a political refugee, he is someone trying to dodge a trial in Sweden for sexual assault. If he is not guilty as he claims; then he should go back to Sweden and face the courts as any normal citizen does. After all Sweden is one of the more liberal countries in the world and doesn't have a third world country reputation for torture.[/quote]I disagree. If he agrees to be extradited to Sweden, he will face extradition to the US. Going by the zeal with which the US are pursuing Gary McKinnon for instance, it is not surprising Assange wants to avoid being in a position where the US could pressurise Sweden to do what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickP Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 [quote user="Clair"][quote user="NickP"]Assange is not a political refugee, he is someone trying to dodge a trial in Sweden for sexual assault. If he is not guilty as he claims; then he should go back to Sweden and face the courts as any normal citizen does. After all Sweden is one of the more liberal countries in the world and doesn't have a third world country reputation for torture.[/quote]I disagree. If he agrees to be extradited to Sweden, he will face extradition to the US. Going by the zeal with which the US are pursuing Gary McKinnon for instance, it is not surprising Assange wants to avoid being in a position where the US could pressurise Sweden to do what they want.[/quote] That is your opinion, not a fact. Forget America that is a red herring, he has been charged with a crime in Sweden or are you also of the opinion that the woman in Sweden is telling lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boiling a frog Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 I wonder what all the righteous would say if a british citizen, accused of a child murder,managed to get into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and claimed asylum under some spurious pretext.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Again, I disagree.Forget Sweden. That's a red herring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardener Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Don't you think that the two women deserve justice if he is guilty of the allegations they have made?If Sweden is a red herring why didn't the US apply to have him extradicted from the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickP Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 [quote user="Clair"]Again, I disagree.Forget Sweden. That's a red herring.[/quote]So you think the women in Sweden are telling lies. OK If you say so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 A future of indefinate detention in an embassy is a good outcome. I trust all the supporters who posted bail have beenn happy to forfi their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araucaria Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 I can't say that Mr Assange comes over as a very likeable person in his private life (but then I'm a man), but as a matter of fact, rather than opinion, he has not been charged with any crimes at all.In his public life it seems fairly certain that the US government would like to prosecute him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Will you walk into my parlour?" said the Spider to the Fly, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 As someone who lived for 10 years in Sweden I can state that there is nothing abnormal about the way Sweden is handling this case. It is customary not to charge someone there until they have been questioned and given a chance to put their side of the story. I can understand why they do not want to accept the Ecudorian offer to question Assange in the London embassy. It would appear that if after such questioning they decided to charge Assange then there would be no guarantee he would come to Sweden.As regards possible extradition to the USA it is easier to extradite someone from Britain to the USA than from Sweden. Swedish law explicitly forbids extradition if there is a possibility of a death sentence. No such gurantee for extradition from the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Rabbie, I too have read that it would be harder for him to be extradited from Sweden to the USA.I have also read about these two women, and don't know what to make of it all. Do women lie, yes, as men do. And do they lie about sexual encounters, I would say yes to that too. Has JS got form, ie, I cannot help but think of DSK? Who it has to be said, said that he was set up, but he certainly has 'form'.......... and I am wondering if JS is being set up. I have noted that the precise word, rape, has not been mentioned, but sexual assault, whatever that is, because I'm not sure I can work that one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 The alleged offence in Sweden hinges on the fact that the woman only consented to protected sex and found out too late that Assange was not using a condom. That is regarded as non-consensual sex under Swedish law. So this is not rape as defined by UK law but is regarded as rape in Sweden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 [quote user="Rabbie"]The alleged offence in Sweden hinges on the fact that the woman only consented to protected sex and found out too late that Assange was not using a condom. That is regarded as non-consensual sex under Swedish law. So this is not rape as defined by UK law but is regarded as rape in Sweden.[/quote] So the UK is willing to extradite him to Sweden against his will to be questioned regarding an allegation of an act that would not be an offence in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Thankyou for that information. Well, frankly that puts a whole new dimension on it as far as I am concerned. Casual sex without condoms, being illegal, sounds fair enough to me and yes, I consider it as sexual assault. If the law in Sweden says he must go and be questioned, then he should go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now