There is no use crying over spilled semen

[rick_day]

Is GB about to toss out the Vienna Convention over Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy flap?

... returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided - after immense pressure from the Obama administration - to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.

This will be,

Comments

[mahnmut]

America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally

The title is very apt.

[mikeyxw]

What is the Decisive and Illegal Act that America's Vassal has committed? The UK seems to have done little more than thinking bad thoughts about Mr. Assange. Okay, they put the bad thoughts on paper and sent them to the Ecuadorans. This still doesn't strike me as decisive, illegal, or much of an act.

[mahnmut]

Having thoughts? Who allowed them to have thoughts?

Her Majesty's Thought Police would like a word with you. If you could please enter this dark room with the opaque glass, please. And please don't mind the bright light directed at your face...

[ddstory]

Ooh they have the power to stop people from safely flying to foreign lands, now... WITH THE POWER OF THEIR BAD THOUGHTS!

OMG. The Queen has bred a generation of Jedi!

[danalwyn]

I think we'll have to see how things turn out. There seems to be no strong confirmation in either direction right now. We have reports from secondhand sources, and notes that Britain has threatened to use the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, but so far the situation is unclear. Whether the UK will choose to do anything, or simply wall off the Ecuadorian embassy, remains to be seen.

What is clear is that Assange isn't going anywhere for a bit, unless he manages to get a bit of collusion from the UK government. One wonders which direction this will fall out.

[rick_day]

If only reality television could be this entertaining *le sigh*

[telemann]

Desmond Tutu and six other Nobel prize winners have petitioned NBC to cancel its new reality series Stars Earn Stripes (they are in a military style boot camp) for glorifying violence and militarism. In fact, the first episode, one of the trainers brags about his "kill rate." The series will feature Todd Palin (Sarah Palin's husband), Dean Cain, etc.

[merig00]

I've seen similar on russian tv a while ago. I'm wondering who came up with it first since usually other countries purchase rights from US/UK first.

As for this series - I caught one episode with Todd and others the other day. Almost fell asleep. Top Shot is more exciting.

[dwer]

this would be a terrible violation. I've no doubt it will happen.

[policraticus]

I doubt it will happen, but if it does I also doubt it will have many far reaching implications.

If I was David Cameron and if Julian Assange really was that important, I'd just threaten to revoke the Ecuadorian diplomatic portfolio and expel them from the country. Ta-da, not a gun drawn.

So what do you think the world reaction would be

The usual kerfluffle, then it would be quickly forgotten. I always remember Walsingham's rejoined to Norfolk, No. They will forget. Not that Assange is worth the bullet.

Just what is the deal

I don't know. Rule of Law, maybe?

And how does he keep convincing people to give him free room and board?

Ha. Easiest question to answer. The US Government hates him.

[chron_job]

> if Julian Assange really was that important, I'd just threaten to revoke the Ecuadorian diplomatic portfolio and
> expel them from the country. Ta-da, not a gun drawn.

current legal direction is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, which is a way to "DE-recognize" an embassy or consular property... but the wording of the law is such that its only suppsoed to be used if the other party is doing something that violates international law.

the key here is "if Julian Assange really was that important". Why is he? Why is the violation of another sovereign's embassy even ON THE TABLE?

> I don't know. Rule of Law, maybe?

Unilateral Revoking a diplomatic portfolio, or other legalistic end-runs, over an asylum request is not about strengthening the Rule of Law. The Rule of law is in fact weakened, being bent to the political expediency of the current players.

[policraticus]

I'd think harboring an international criminal could pass mustard for a violation, with a push.

I don't know why Assange is "so important," frankly. His organization has jeopardized US, EU and other nation's security, perhaps there is some overarching security concerns that we aren't privy to. Maybe he really is a serial rapist. But, if I had my druthers, I'd just let him sit in the Ecuadorian Embassy and grow old there, in a prison of his own making. I'd ignore him.

I don't think it would be a 100% obvious unilateral end run around the law. He is a fugitive from a legitimate charge in Sweden. He should face that charge, according to the law. He isn't some human rights activist from North Korea.

[chron_job]

> I'd think harboring an international criminal could pass mustard for a violation, with a push.

You can't just make up supposed international law on the fly. What agreements or treaties has Ecuador broken, specifically, by accepting his Asylum request? If we just want to invent international law ad hoc, as required, where will that get us? Do you think it will sound any better when we do it, or when, say, China does it?

> I don't know why Assange is "so important," frankly. His organization has jeopardized US, EU and other nation's security,

No. His organization publicized information which had already been compromised by other sources. It's not about security. It's about "Face". It's not about preventing information from falling into enemy hands, its about preventing the general public from knowing about the information that has already fallen into enemy hands.

> He is a fugitive from a legitimate charge in Sweden.

Now that just makes me giggle.

[telemann]

Mr. Assange has no immunity once he sets foot out of the embassy. He wouldn't have any immunity even if he was given Ecuadorian diplomatic status, because GB has some role in granting him such status (that's part of the process normally). He's in quite a pickle.

[rick_day]

Almost true. According to the original articles in the post (remember them?) he can only exit through the front door. If he can make it into a diplomatic car, he still has protection.

It is getting from the car to X that will take him to Ecuador, that is the 'trick'.

Something in the form of compromise has to work out soon, this is a stalemate.

I suggest bringing the Swedish prosecutors into the embassy to question Assange about..their questions. Then let's take it from there.

[telemann]

Yeah, I read about this in another newspaper (sorry I didn't bother reading your linked articles). The articles I read said the minute he steps off the grounds, he has zero protection. I don't think he'll ever get that far anyway, but who knows. Still a developing story.