Wikileaks

  • Thread starter Sage
  • 511 comments
  • 31,713 views
Since embassies are technically foreign soil, thus meaning Britain is threatening to invade Ecuador, can't that be an act of war?

This is a very common misconception (I was under the assumption too, but apparently, it's not). An embassy is not foreign soil, it's still soil of the host country, where special privileges are being granted to the embassy and its personnel.

So, let's say the Dutch ambassador kills one of his employees in the Dutch embassy in the US. This means he committed a crime on US soil and will be prosecuted by US law, not Dutch. And yes, the US police will have a right to arrest him, though they will have to ask the ambassador for permission to access the embassy first.

Note that the UK passed a specific law (that allows them to enter an embassy without permission after giving a warning) in 1987 after an incident with the Libian embassy, where people demonstrating in front of the Libian were shot upon from the Libian embassy, resulting in the death of a British police woman. Regular law requires a country to ask permission from the ambassador first (or send him home).
 
Last edited:
What supprises me is why are the police doing this now, he has been there for 2 months and now the day when the decision is being made on his asylum and the day this may all come to an end anyway is the day the british decide to make these threats.

By the end of today this story will have completely changed whatever happens.

What also annoys me with this is how the british have to get involved when to be honest they could just say that he if the equadorians (can't spell) give him asylum then that is that, however they are making such a big issue out of it just to keep the americans happy.
 
What also annoys me with this is how the british have to get involved when to be honest they could just say that he if the equadorians (can't spell) give him asylum then that is that, however they are making such a big issue out of it just to keep the americans happy.
But the Swedes requested extradition, and the High Court rejected Assange's bid to have it overturned. Legally, Britain has to do everything possible to see that Assange is extradited.
 
It will be bad for America/UK if Assange is taken by force from the embassy using the legal route, it is said to be legal as a law was made for it after the Libyan Embassy shooting in the UK of which the Libyan who shot someone from the embassy escaped under diplomatic immunity.
But if the law is enforced in this manner when the Embassy has not committed any crime then it opens up the worlds American embassies in any country to be entered by force and any Americans inside just be taken out and imprisoned or tortured on any whim of the host country. No longer any diplomatic immunity for Americans abroad. And just us bad for America/UK, because of this immunity shift, strategic countries will close their embassies or withdraw from America for fear of this new development.
 
A breach into the embassy would be a rather impolite way to solve the issue. The British could however, try taking Assange from the possible transport from the Embassy, as that isn't as serious diplomatic violation as is a breach. At least that wouldn't violate Ecuadorian soil and the embassy's grounds.

If the UK barges into the Ecuadorian embassy that can be seen as an act of war since the Ecuadorian embassy is classed as Ecuadorian soil.

Plus their are laws against it and if they did it Assange will be let go as the UK will have a global backlash.

Plus I think it is good what Assange did America has killed many though this stupid war and some of their soldiers killed people for kicks.

But they can be charged for murder cause it is classed as a casualty of war.

Plus I see America as a war mongering nation,they are ordering china to back off in their own waters, they complained when North Korea where making long range missiles.

You forget the thing that Assange is possibly guilty of a rape. That's up for the Swedish court to decide if the evidence is strong enough.

Should all people who reveal things of world superpowers stand above the law?


And, North Korea was the warmongering nation of these three as far as I recall. Didn't they attack South Korean civilians on South Korean territory with artillery last year? Now that they have nukes, and if they get long-range missiles, there is a real danger of them really using the nukes.
 
They just want to get him so they can send him to the US?

Do they have any evidence like DNA, other witnesses, video?
 
They just want to get him so they can send him to the US?
There is no evidence of that - just the assumption by Assange's supporters who claim that the charges in Sweden have been trumped up so that the United States can get their hands on him more easily.

As far as I am aware, none of Assange's supporters have given an explanation as to why the United States would be trying to extradite him from Sweden rather than from the United Kingdom, one of their closest allies. If the British are as keen to please the United States as Assange's supporters claim, then they would have no trouble extraditing him directly - so why are they sending him to Sweden?

Do they have any evidence like DNA, other witnesses, video?
Do you think the British High Court would have ignored British laws and rejected Assange's appeal without any evidence to support the move?
 
You forget the thing that Assange is possibly guilty of a rape. That's up for the Swedish court to decide if the evidence is strong enough.

Should all people who reveal things of world superpowers stand above the law?
A court does not need the attendance of Assange to have a trial. He could and is willing to testify via video link.

Whether it is about superpowers is not relevant to the law, and also it is not about being "above the law" America has not declared any intention of charging Assange for any reason. They are just looking into it. So he is just avoiding the potential action of America, which is justified considering he can do so if he wishes, he is not an American citizen.
 
Okay, let's revive this discussion, given that the standoff between Assange and the British is coming to a head. Ecuador is on the verge of announcing a decision regarding his plea for political asylum, while the British have threatened to storm to embassy where Assange is currently awaiting a decision from Quito.

Ecuador have now granted Assange asylum...

As NLxAROSA has explained, the UK government are within their rights (and the law) to take Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy, but as XoravaX points out, that would still constitute a serious breach of diplomatic etiquette. The question is, is it really worth the bother?
 
...is it really worth the bother?

The entertainment value could be priceless. Imagine Tony Blair, storming the Ecuadoran embassy dressed in a Batman costume, frogmarching Assange out in chains, then directly rendering him to the CIA for transport to Gitmo!

Fantastical, but likely representative of what the powers that be (offended by him) would like to do to him.

Respectfully,
Steve
 
Imagine Tony Blair, storming the Ecuadoran embassy dressed in a Batman costume, frogmarching Assange out in chains, then directly rendering him to the CIA for transport to Gitmo!

Blair hasn't been Prime Minister for quite a while now.


You would need the dynamic man of action that is David Cameron (that's sarcasm BTW unless anyone misses it).
 
This is very interesting. Of course I'm referring to a western democratic country entering by the use of government force into an established embassy from another country and taking someone from there.

I don't care what laws the UK has, as far as I'm concerned their internal laws are meaningless here, we're dealing with International Law and how it applies to diplomatic relations.

In any case, if this happens, a precedent will be set. And embassies throughout the world, especially in other continents and political systems, better prepare.
 
As NLxAROSA has explained, the UK government are within their rights (and the law) to take Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy, but as XoravaX points out, that would still constitute a serious breach of diplomatic etiquette.
Not to mention there are plenty of countries around the world that are more than willing to return the favor if they do. ;)
 
This is very interesting. Of course I'm referring to a western democratic country entering by the use of government force into an established embassy from another country and taking someone from there.

I don't care what laws the UK has, as far as I'm concerned their internal laws are meaningless here, we're dealing with International Law and how it applies to diplomatic relations.

In any case, if this happens, a precedent will be set. And embassies throughout the world, especially in other continents and political systems, better prepare.

Very perceptive, repercussions could quickly ensure against British embassies around the world. But in the end, might makes right; and Britain, the US and the others are playing that game for all they are worth(?) right now. High stakes, much bluffing, and disaster looms at every hand!

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
Is this the UK law? If it is, it'll be laughable to enter the equatorian embassy because of it:

Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987
Acquisition and loss by land of diplomatic or consular status.

(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, where a State desires that land shall be diplomatic or consular premises, it shall apply to the Secretary of State for his consent to the land being such premises.


(2)A State need not make such an application in relation to land if the Secretary of State accepted it as diplomatic or consular premises immediately before the coming into force of this section.


(3)In no case is land to be regarded as a State’s diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of any enactment or rule of law unless it has been so accepted or the Secretary of State has given that State consent under this section in relation to it; and if—


(a)a State ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post; or


(b)the Secretary of State withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to land,


it thereupon ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of all enactments and rules of law.

(4)The Secretary of State shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law.


(5)In determining whether to do so he shall have regard to all material considerations, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection—


(a)to the safety of the public;


(b)to national security; and


(c)to town and country planning.


(6)If a State intends to cease using land as premises of its mission or as consular premises, it shall give the Secretary of State notice of that intention, specifying the date on which it intends to cease so using them.


(7)In any proceedings a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Secretary of State stating any fact relevant to the question whether or not land was at any time diplomatic or consular premises shall be conclusive of that fact.

I wonder if Assange is a threat to the safety of the public, to national security or indeed to town and country planning. But I guess not, so the UK would need to resort to the "generality of this subsection" :rolleyes:
 
If the UK does not use that Act, there is still the matter of the UK allowing Assange to get on a plane out of the country, diplomatic immunity only applies in the embassy not outside the doors. Ecuador need to bestow Assange a title of diplomat or some kind of official representative for the Ecuadorian government, only if it's a temporary arrangement. But I think the UK could refuse to accept his "arrival" as diplomat into the country...(even though he is already in the country [but he isn't he's in Ecudaor..]) ..lol.

It's difficult as a non approved diplomat could be classed an Ecuadorian spy maybe.
 
If the UK does not use that Act, there is still the matter of the UK allowing Assange to get on a plane out of the country, diplomatic immunity only applies in the embassy not outside the doors. Ecuador need to bestow Assange a title of diplomat or some kind of official representative for the Ecuadorian government, only if it's a temporary arrangement. But I think the UK could refuse to accept his "arrival" as diplomat into the country...(even though he is already in the country [but he isn't he's in Ecudaor..]) ..lol.

It's difficult as a non approved diplomat could be classed an Ecuadorian spy maybe.

The only genuinely realistic option I can think of is helicopter lift from the roof.
 
The only genuinely realistic option I can think of is helicopter lift from the roof.
But a helicopter does not have diplomatic immunity, either it lands under instruction or it can be shot down.
The only way Assange can leave is with the UK permission. That permission may happen if refusing it puts UK in a worse international position than giving it.
 
prisonermonkeys
There is no evidence of that - just the assumption by Assange's supporters who claim that the charges in Sweden have been trumped up so that the United States can get their hands on him more easily.

As far as I am aware, none of Assange's supporters have given an explanation as to why the United States would be trying to extradite him from Sweden rather than from the United Kingdom, one of their closest allies. If the British are as keen to please the United States as Assange's supporters claim, then they would have no trouble extraditing him directly - so why are they sending him to Sweden?
Let's create a timeline. Assange embarrasses the US, shows video evidence of soldiers killing innocents, and supposedly creates a security risk in May and November of 2010. He is in Sweden at the time. In December of 2010, weeks after the second release of documents, he has sexual assault charges brought against him in Sweden, where he is at the time.

He leaves Sweden before the warrant can be served. If it is the US trying to get to him it would look obvious if every country he went to suddenly had accusations raised against him. He escaped their trap so that is all they have to publicly use to catch him now.

Does that explain it? It isn't hard to figure out the logic behind the theory if you just look at the time stamps on relevant news stories.

Do you think the British High Court would have ignored British laws and rejected Assange's appeal without any evidence to support the move?
Do you think Ecuador would flip Britain and Sweden the bird if there was evidence?

I'll tell you what, I will believe 100% that Assange is wanted of nothing more than drugging and sexing a woman when he is treated the same as Roman Polanski has been for drugging and anally sexing a 13-year-old girl. You know, being allowed to freely traipse around Europe (including Britain and Sweden) and make millions of dollars and win awards with only one catch and release arrest after 32 years.
 
The only genuinely realistic option I can think of is helicopter lift from the roof.

What helicopter has enough range to depart from an airport, fly to the embassy, extract him, and then take him to an Airport that doesnt have an extradition treaty with Sweden, and then home to Ecuador.


Imagine if Chavez wanted to further irritate the USA, and sent an air-tanker to refuel said helicopter, long enough to leave British waters and land on a Venezuelan Frigate/Destroyer with a helipad.

Even then, I reckon that there is some sort of "He's in British airspace, and you cant just fly a Helicopter that low over the Embassies" Law.


It's not very likely that he will escape from the Embassy.
 
@Hawkeye, the helicopter only has to be parked in a private location and Assange driven to it under immunity as apparently cars do have immunity (He would need to be smuggled into a car, perhaps in diplomatic luggage) . A helicopter only has to fly for 12 miles off the coast into international waters and drop him off into a boat. Helicopter can return to land.


Potential routes as listed by an article.
"Could Ecuador give Assange a diplomatic passport?

Such passports are supposed to facilitate travel but do not confer immunity from the laws of other states.

Could Ecuador grant Assange diplomatic status?

This would be a bold move by Ecuador, and would ratchet up the crisis. Article 29 of the Vienna Convention states that those with diplomatic status are immune from prosecution. It reads: "The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving state shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity."

But there is a countervailing obligation on Ecuador to respect the laws of the UK and not to interfere in Britain's internal affairs.

Joanne Foakes, a former Foreign Office lawyer now based at the international think tank Chatham House, said: "In principle, a state can freely appoint anyone as a member of its mission, apart from its head of mission. But if they were to seek to do so now, it would be an obvious device to evade the laws of the receiving state, the UK. In these circumstances the UK may feel justified in repudiating such an appointment."

Could embassy officials put Assange in a diplomatic vehicle and drive him to the airport?

Diplomatic vehicles are immune from searches from the receiving country, in this case the UK. But even if Assange managed to get into an embassy car without being arrested, he would at some stage have to get out to board a plane. At that point he will have lost the protection conferred by being technically on Ecuadorean soil, and would be back under UK jurisdiction and liable for arrest.

Could he be smuggled out – or placed in a crate or bag that has diplomatic protection?

As far-fetched as this sounds, it has been tried before in the UK.

In 1984 an attempt was made to abduct a Nigerian politician, Umaru Dikko, from Britain by placing him in a crate and attempting to ship him back to Nigeria. Those involved tried, but failed, to label the crate correctly as a diplomatic package or bag.

The Vienna Convention says: "The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained."

But such a package is not immune from scanning, or from thermal imaging, which would pick up body heat from inside any such package. In such circumstances, UK authorities may be entitled to open the package and seize the concealed Assange."
 
Last edited:
So he's not leaving...

He could go all "Great Escape" and dig his way out of the watchful eye of the London Police, and get into a diplomatic car elsewhere, and fly out of a remote location.
 
If the British are as keen to please the United States as Assange's supporters claim, then they would have no trouble extraditing him directly - so why are they sending him to Sweden?

I'll take a stab at this question;

Based on recent cases where attempts have been made to extradite an individual to the US it would very likely put public opinion on his side. Therefore it would be much easier to extradite him to Sweden.
 
All this talk of smuggling Assange in a car or helicopter...

The vehicle itself may be "Ecuadorian Soil," but the roads and airspace are not. The UK have the right to stop (or even attack) the vehicles, but not the right to search them.
 
The UK have the right to stop (or even attack) the vehicles, but not the right to search them.
Actually, the rules governing the soverignity of diplomatic vehicles only apply under certain circumstances. The Ecuadorians might consider Assange to be an asylum seeker, but the British will call him a fugitive, so the rules dictating whether or not the car is soverign are open to debate.

Besides, even if the British cannot touch the car, all they have to do is force it to pull over and wait. Assange cannot stay in the car forever.
 
Well, the Swedes aren't happy with Assange.

Elsewhere, Assange's defence team claim that Australia should step in and aid him, but the government insists that they have made themselves available to him from day one and he has chosen not to take them up on their offer.
 
If this guy is so hellbent on unmasking corporations and government, why can't he just man up and tell his side of the story accurately? Sounds like he just wants to run from something...
 
Back