Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

UK govt threatens to invade Ecuador over Assange.

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by grue, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. Fuсking scumbags. Be a US lapdog a little more, you pussies.


  2. What a crock of sensationalist bullshit. The UK is invading nothing (including the Ecuadorian embassy) and will not do any such thing.

    This is all rubbish left wing "journalism" from Assange supporters....

    Whatever the US motivation / involement may be there is a simple underlying FACT.

    Assange is alleged to have commited certain criminal offences in Sweden and is, legally, subject to extradition proceedings.

    End of story.

  3. And legally, the UK has no standing to enter the embassy without permission, and the fact that they've even threatened to do it is without precedent in modern times, at least by an allegedly civilized country. I've never had much respect for the UK government, and if they actually make a move I'll have none.

    Yes, he should probably interface with Sweden on the allegations there, but without assurances that the Swedes won't kowtow to the US and send him there for persecution, I wouldn't go either.
  4. so in other words, you're just using this non-event as an excuse for some Anti-US invective? What a waste of electrons :roll:.
  5. How is this a non event??????
  6. Anti-US gov, anti-UK gov to be fair.

    As for calling it a non-event, it's a pretty serious fuсking thing. If one government decides to piss on Vienna '61, taking shelter at embassies anywhere becomes moot. That an alleged first-world nation would threaten to do this is insane.
  7. i read this earlier, what happens if they actually do it?
  8. Typically it would probably involve America declaring war on the invading country (and yes invading is the correct term). In this case, probably not much.

    I'm somewhat surprised he didn't try the French, unless they aren't as pro liberty as they pertain to be.
  9. They won't. Also we only have their say so that they receievd a written threat from the UK government. That seems HIGHLY unlikely to me. People are reluctant (for obvious reasons) to put their name to something like that. Also diplomacy is often conducted informally and verbally. I smell a rat.
  10. The UK entered the Iranian embassy in 1980.

    And after the murder of a WPC from the Libyan Embassy in 1984, and a kidnapping under the cover of diplomatic immunity by Nigeria they decided something had to be done.

    To be honest they done nothing more that the normal diplomatic too and froing involved in these kind of negotiations...

    I've never really understood why Sweden is considered more likely to ship him to the US though???
  11. Quote the BBC...

  12. I wouldn't be too keen to even face those charges in Sweden, either.
    To be charged with a sexual offense after consensual sex, because the other participant decided afterwards that you probably should've worn a condom?
    Doesn't seem right to me...
  13. it is the veiw of some that the sweedish charegess are trumped up to open the way for extradition to us
  14. I dont think that charge is even illegal in the UK.....i could be wrong though.
  15. I don't think that matters...
  16. It doesn't have to be law in the country you're residing in now, it only has to be law in the country where you're accused, and the law had to exist at the time of the alleged offense.

    Australia has just denied extradition of an alleged war criminal to Hungary, because the laws he's charged with breaking, didn't actually exist in Hungary at the time of the alleged offense...
  17. My understanding is the charges he is facing in Sweden the USA government honestly don't care about, they want him extradited to the USA to face treason/espionage charges, from all the stuff he put on wikileaks.
    that's what i've been reading about...

    but i am just wondering what the repercussions of the UK government arresting him in the Ecuador embassy would be.

    lilley said it would be like declaring war.. which is insane.
  18. Maybe I exaggerated, but only slightly. They would probably stop short of announcing a state of war, but yeh, it would be bad.
  19. It's my understanding that in order to enter the foreign embassy they have to cancel the embassies right to a place on British soil which they do have a technical right to do. It then ceases to be foreign soil and they can enter without all the 'sovereign soil' issues.

    They can then expel all of that foreign countries diplomats and only the senior diplomats actually have the protection of diplomatic immunity during that process. Anyone else in the embassy lacks it and that would include Julian Assange which means they could arrest him.

    It's a pretty serious thing to do though and I can't say that using that 'final contingency' law for a case like this is in the spirit of the law even if it may be within the letter of the law.

    These sorts of responses have traditionally been reserved for war criminals and multiple murderers.
  20. …and those are the heads of state.