I strongly doubt that Britain will take sudden action to arrest Assange in the embassy. What's likely to happen now is a stand off where he can't get out of the embassy because he'll be arrested. The UK and Ecuador will try to negotiate some sort of deal where Assange does go to Sweden to be questioned. Given that European states don't have the death penalty Assange would not be extradited to the US if there was a risk of him facing death there.
If he leaves he'll be arrested, if he manages to get in a diplomatic car the car will be stopped with Assange in it and there'll be a stand off. If Ecuador tries to make him into a diplomat the UK can simply refuse to accept that he is a diplomat. And if they try to use a diplomatic bag then the UK will claim that it's being used for improper purposes and block it. IMHO Assange is stuck there until a deal is worked out.
The granting of asylum is just one step in what will continue to be a tedious soap opera.
My interpretation of the letter that the FO sent to Ecuador is as a statement of a negotiating position given that the FO got wind of the fact that he was going to be offered asylum.
Can they not put him in a helicopter with a diplomatic courier or minor embassy functionary and fly him out to a boat in international waters?
(Edit: I see now that was already discussed below. nm.)
That asked, I tend to agree that the most likely case is that Ecuador is only involved because they want unrelated concessions from the UK and will likely turn him over after some brief negotiations.
Wow - this comment shows just how out of touch people who do not live in day to day Latin America are, with respect to Ecuador's decision to grant asylum. I am an Aussie/Brit, who has been happily living in Ecuador for the last four years. I would never have thought the day would come where I felt prouder looking at my Ecuadorian ID than I do my Aussie or British passports. But that certainly happened today! Anyway, to the point at hand. Ecuador has given Assange asylum because it has seriously considered the situation he's ended up in, and considers that not only is the whole clusterfuck politically motivated, but that if they DIDN'T offer asylum, at the very least, Assange's human rights would be violated. It is certainly NOT some cynical exercise in obtaining "unrelated concessions" from the UK ... that much I can assure you! It seems the UK Foreign Office also made such a misjudgement in trying to actually threaten Ecuador prior to the announcement, in the hope of perhaps intimidating them into NOT giving Assange asylum. What a monumental fail that was! It is actually hard to imagine how the UK could have made this situation much worse ... oh ... wait ... yes, they could've stormed the sovereign and inviolate territory of the Ecuadorian Embassy! Anyway, the point is that Ecuador is standing on principle here (remember that quaint concept?), and fortunately they are operating at a level of integrity which has allowed them to repudiate the skulduggery of two of the most powerful nations in the world. Viva Ecuador! Shining a light on what are some very very dark dealings indeed. Anybody who hasn't woken up to what is really going on here yet, is probably not going to reach the baseline IQ requirement in this lifetime anyway! And trying to explain this sort of stuff to those sorts of people is like banging your head on a brick wall (probably more painful actually!). Ciao for now. :)
Assange would not be extradited to the US if there was a risk of him facing death there.
There is no legal risk of Assange facing death in the US, is there? As far as I've read, he's just a nuisance to the US government, not wanted for any crimes. Or is that mistaken?
That's not the sort of thing you can take for granted. Bradley Manning was a member of the US military and the world generally is relatively tolerant of countries abusing their own enlisted citizens. Assange isn't even American -- it would be a much bigger deal.
But America is not well known for extending more -- never mind equal -- rights to non-citizens than to citizens, despite the clear intentions of the authors of the Bill of Rights.
This is how they treated another Australian called David Hicks ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks ... who by any measure has done far less "damage" to the US than has Assange.
________________________
Quote - "Hicks's legal team attributed his acceptance of the plea bargain to his "desperation for release from Guantanamo" and duress as "instances of severe beatings, sleep deprivation and other conditions of detention that contravene international human rights norms."
________________________
The US is effectively a Police State right now (read Pt 5 here: http://vrec.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/vilcabamba-ecuador-real...) ... and getting worse. If anybody believes they wouldn't throw Assange in the deepest darkest most inhospitable hole they have, I'm afraid they are deluded. He simply must not be allowed to fall into the hands of the USA.
I doubt the US would seek the death penalty. It would be way too public, instead they'd probably just put him in a black hole like Gitmo or some super max. And that would be that.
In the two reports I've seen, the only evidence of the British threat to enter the embassy are representations by Ecuador. We haven't seen the letter and we haven't heard those suggestions from any British government spokesman.
It shouldn't surprise me to learn the Ecuadorans are making more of some reference than is actually there. I can't see what interest they have in Assange beyond tweaking the US, which is probably great domestic and regional politics for their government.
Nor would it surprise me if the British letter included some clarification of that embassy's status, without suggestion of entry in this matter. The British have had at least one police officer shot dead by a sniper from an embassy and are probably at pains that everyone understands there are limits.
The British aren't going to complicate diplomatic immunities over a two-bit twerp like Assange. They'll be content to let him get moldy in there. Eventually people will lose interest, he'll get bored, and he'll likely emerge of his own will to get back into the papers.
Your characterization of Julian Assange as a "two-bit twerp" is weird. You are aware he is an extraordinarily high profile figure on the world stage, yes?
He is 'two-bit' as in 'not worth a major international incident, neither superhero nor supervillain'. His high publicity only reinforces his relative lack of actual importance against the cost of making a REAL international incident which isn't just talk.
For Ecuador's government he is worth a little more - as a way of proving that they are anti-colonialist and not afraid of Uncle Sam. Other than that, Wikileaks doesn't require Assange to function, which means both that protecting Assange is incidental to protecting Wikileaks and also that attacking Assange is not an effective way of suppressing Wikileaks.
Yes to all of that. But the central question this story is going to answer is "What happens to people who embarrass the U.S. Government in the 21st century?" The answer to that question answers the fate of Wikileaks, which is ultimately just a collection of people. And it's going to inform the behavior of anyone else down the line who might embarrass the U.S. Government.
I'd be more than happy to have Kim Kardashian spent the rest of her life in the Ecuadorian embassy.
My point is that although Assange is well known, he is not a prisoner of conscience like Mandela, Ai WeiWei, Ghandi etc etc. He is not being pursued for bravely standing up to an oppressive regime. He is being pursued for taking sexual advantage of two women.
Kim Kardashian is not really that famous globally, I only know who she is because of the internet. My parents and all my friends have no idea who she is.
Assange on the other hand has made the newspaper here many times.
Sorry but sexual assault is a very serious crime. Never mind the unusual circumstances of this particular case, your comment is insulting to sexual assault victims as it implies sexual assault is a lesser crime.
This entire fiasco is insulting to sexual assault victims, as it trivializes their plight, unless the person in question is of some repute.
Has any international incident ever happened over a college date rape?! Do you recall an incident that a nation threatens to violate sovereignty of another nation over questioning of sexual misconduct?! Maybe the Trojan war!
An Interpol Red notice issued over sexual misconduct, while Assad is butchering the Syrian population by the thousands...
There is still something very funny about this insistence that the questioning happens in Sweden. Swedish police can come to UK to question. UK police could question on behalf of Swedish police, there are arrangements for that I think.
Extradition when there are no charges is unusual.
The UK have been here before, General Pinochet and the Spanish judges spring to mind.
Edit: further reading on European arrest warrants makes me realise that each country in Europe has a different definition of 'arrest'.
Ecuador offered this, saying they are welcome to question him in their embassy but the Swedes refused. It's blatantly obvious the US is leaning very hard on both the UK and SE.
You have an ... interesting definition of "blatantly obvious".
There are a number of legitimate reasons Sweden would refuse this idea. Foremost among them is that, in the event this questioning leads to a decision to arrest, it likely can't be performed.
Exactly. This is obvious. That is why law enforcement wants to perform interrogations in an environment they control, when they are dealing with a suspect.
As a personal anecdote, there is a close friend of my family who has been facing extradition to another country merely for questioning over something that he allegedly did in 1944.
Depending on the jurisdiction, before charges can be formally filed, there may need to be some kind of grand jury action which may lead to an indictment. A subpoena to appear before the grand jury can lead to a bench warrant for arrest for failure to appear. The charge in such cases would therefore be "contempt of court" (or the equivalent).
Oh get off your high horse already. This kind of Fox News argumentation breaking everything down to base emotions and 'I'm offended' rhetoric is offensive to anyone with an intellect.
Of course sexual assault is a serious crime!
Personally, I just find it interesting that only Strauss Khan and now Assange get this kind of persecution when it fits someone's agenda.
If you read something else - sort out your own demons.
The "persecution" is seen as widely as the stage the actor normally plays on. Here in Pennsylvania, we have Jerry Sandusky; and closer in Philadelphia, pedophilic priest scandals.
The more people can see you, the more people will want to see what happen to you, and the more careful you need to be since people are always looking.
Noted. The next time a female blogger discusses sexism in the tech industry I'll be sure to look for your comment discussing the post as nothing more than "Fox News argumentation" that breaks everything down to base emotions.
He isn't accused of rape - it was "unprotected consensual sex", which is quite different. The charges were withdrawn by the women, but re-instated by someone TBD.
I think the parent poster's description is closer to the mark.
Democracy? Each to their own I guess.
Note that this is not actual sexual assault. Sexual assault must be committed without consent. However Assange had consensual sex. The definition of rape in Sweden is badly broken.
More specifically, it seems the definition of rape in Sweden is not directly comparable to the definition in the United States, therefore emotional-laden reactionary arguments come across as uninformed and disingenuous. This is problematic because the debate necessarily ends up orbiting very close to "violent agreement" and "ad hominem". Neither of which are useful when the subject matter is this serious.
Actually no, the courts in England investigated it and decided that what he did would count as crimes in England aswell. He has also been 'charged' with having sex with someone who was asleep. Lots of places have that as a crime.
The nature of the charge is nonexistent. Sweden hasn't charged him with anything. Sweden is making a huge fuss over wanting to question him, and being stubborn about wanting to him to Sweden first. This implies to many of us that Sweden is not acting in good faith.
No, it seems the UK is really serious about embassies not being used to shield people pursued by its criminal justice system who are not diplomats of that embassy.
Perhaps the UK is serious about its relations with Sweden as well.
There are many things for the UK to be serious about short of alleged sexual assault in Sweden (not that one shouldn't be serious about sexual assault, in general, in any country...)
If he leaves he'll be arrested, if he manages to get in a diplomatic car the car will be stopped with Assange in it and there'll be a stand off. If Ecuador tries to make him into a diplomat the UK can simply refuse to accept that he is a diplomat. And if they try to use a diplomatic bag then the UK will claim that it's being used for improper purposes and block it. IMHO Assange is stuck there until a deal is worked out.
The granting of asylum is just one step in what will continue to be a tedious soap opera.
My interpretation of the letter that the FO sent to Ecuador is as a statement of a negotiating position given that the FO got wind of the fact that he was going to be offered asylum.