Assange.

[pi]

respECUADOR?

copied that from a mate's status, can't take the credit for that brilliance

http://www.theage.com.au/world/ecuador-grants-asylum-to-assange-20120816-24bs4.html

[MonsieurHulot]

It'll be very interesting to see if the UK abides by the international diplomatic conventions or arrests him as soon as he steps out of the embassy. I doubt they'll invade the embassy itself, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they stop the diplomatic car in which he leaves in. It's a complex situation; is it alright to arrest a 'diplomat' who has committed a crime in your country? There is no modern precedence to support that, but it seems a reasonable step.

[IndefatigableLover]

respECUADOR?

copied that from a mate's status, can't take the credit for that brilliance

http://www.theage.com.au/world/ecuador-grants-asylum-to-assange-20120816-24bs4.html

Ecuador's got balls.. that's all I can say

But yes I'm wondering whether they will abide the international law or will they straight up storm the embassy. Though I think they won't storm the embassy. :S

[JellyDonut]

but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they stop the diplomatic car in which he leaves in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492

Embassy vehicles are protected by law from police searches - but how could he get into an Ecuadorean car without being apprehended? And what happens after he's in the car? At some point he will have to get out again. Stranger things have happened.

In 1984 there was an attempt to smuggle a Nigerian man from the UK in a so-called "diplomatic bag" protected from inspection. The bag was in fact a large crate - and customs officers successfully intercepted it at the airport.

There appears to have precedence in preventing people seeking refuge in embassies.

And storming the embassy is definitely out of the question.

[charmanderp]

There's going to need to be some kind of concerted international effort to get him out of the UK. Can't see it happening soon.

The number of conventions which are intended to protect the civil liberties of people which are being violated here is innumerable.

[Thu Thu Train]

It'll be very interesting to see if the UK abides by the international diplomatic conventions or arrests him as soon as he steps out of the embassy. I doubt they'll invade the embassy itself, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they stop the diplomatic car in which he leaves in. It's a complex situation; is it alright to arrest a 'diplomat' who has committed a crime in your country? There is no modern precedence to support that, but it seems a reasonable step.

If he leaves the embassy in a car they can't search it or something but they can probably stop him at the airport

[charmanderp]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/assange-affair-could-drag-on-for-years/story-e6frg6so-1226452301353

http://www.scotsman.com/news/diplomatic-immunity-won-t-protect-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-says-william-hague-1-2471739

Next step looks very interesting...

[Tomw2]

IMO the fact that the UK et al are so keen to publicly circumvent diplomacy and international law demonstrates that there is much more to this than meets the eye.

Until this completely bizarre move by the U.K., I wasn't fully buying in to the conspiracy theories. But now... 
IMO there is no way a major international player like the UK would operate in this way to pursue a case such as the allegations against Assange, unless of course there was something much bigger at play.

[Lasercookie]

I'll take a bit of devil's advocate position in this post here then.

Assange has been charged of a crime in Sweden. How do we know, other than his word and the very odd circumstances of the issue, that he is not guilty of it?

Would it be improper of the UK to assume that he is not guilty, that he does not need to deal with these allegations and allow him to escape?

I don't know anything about UK's international relations, but they seem to be in some sort of 'tug-of-war' between Sweden and Ecuador. Oh I should also mention that I know nothing really about these laws. Feel free to highlight any flaws if I am holding a misconception.

This is probably my main question that I'd like answered. UK seems to be bound by the Extradition law and also this diplomacy business. These are both pieces of international law? Which one is more important, which one do they have very little way out of following? If they have a legal method of not having to deal with this Ecuador business, but not a legal way out of the extradition business, then wouldn't it make sense to go for the Sweden path then?

Are they in a position to do nothing?

Also, what international relationship is of more value to the UK? Sweden or Ecuador. Would that be a factor in it?

[Tomw2]

How do we know, other than his word and the very odd circumstances of the issue, that he is not guilty of it?

It's a completely legit question - but guilt isn't so much the issue right now, rather than whether or not he is likely to receive justice. The fact that Ecuador has stuck it's neck out and granted him asylum is significant. They believe, guilty or not, he will not receive proper justice and is a victim of political persecution.

Which one is more important

The major ones governing diplomacy and sovereignty are, IMO, most important here. But of course, like most things in international law and anarchic relations, it is more philosophy than code.

Also, what international relationship is of more value to the UK? Sweden or Ecuador. Would that be a factor in it?

This is why diplomatic conventions and laws are important - so a diplomatic mission doesn't have to second guess to what degree their relationship is 'valued' and therefore whether or not their retain their sovereignty in that mission.

[lexitu]

^ He hasn't been charged of a crime though!

[Tomw2]

^ He hasn't been charged of a crime though!

He has in Sweden?

[lexitu]

^ He hasn't been charged of a crime though!

He has in Sweden?

They just want him for questioning. No charges.

[Tomw2]

They just want him for questioning. No charges.

That's worse then - why wouldn't they question him in the embassy when it was offered....?

[jazza97]

I'll take a bit of devil's advocate position in this post here then.

Assange has been charged of a crime in Sweden. How do we know, other than his word and the very odd circumstances of the issue, that he is not guilty of it?

Would it be improper of the UK to assume that he is not guilty, that he does not need to deal with these allegations and allow him to escape?

I don't know anything about UK's international relations, but they seem to be in some sort of 'tug-of-war' between Sweden and Ecuador. Oh I should also mention that I know nothing really about these laws. Feel free to highlight any flaws if I am holding a misconception.

This is probably my main question that I'd like answered. UK seems to be bound by the Extradition law and also this diplomacy business. These are both pieces of international law? Which one is more important, which one do they have very little way out of following? If they have a legal method of not having to deal with this Ecuador business, but not a legal way out of the extradition business, then wouldn't it make sense to go for the Sweden path then?

Are they in a position to do nothing?

Also, what international relationship is of more value to the UK? Sweden or Ecuador. Would that be a factor in it?

he HAS NOT been charged with in any judiciary in the world.  Sweden want to question him on allegations of having consensual sex without a condom.  One of the women involved is the daughter of a high profile American businessman who was the chief of a company with close links with the CIA (cant remember the name and can't be bothered looking it up tbh).  Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden because he fears getting extradited to America from there.  He has openly stated that the Swedish prosecutors are more than welcome and encouraged to come and ask the questions they want to ask him in England...after all its only a short train ride away.