UK Threatening to Storm Ecuador Embassy

My OTC thread disappeared but I got no PM about it, I assume it wasn't up to the mod standards there, so I'll just post here where anything goes!

So UK threatened to storm the Ecuador Embassy, which is you know, super illegal under the Vienna Convention. Ecuador has granted Assange asylum but UK is refusing to give him safe passage out of the country (I suppose it wouldn't be that easy). And UK is trying to decide on whether or not they should remove embassy status to the Ecuador building in order to storm it.

You know, I simply don't get the lengths to which the West is trying to jail this guy just for speaking out that we've fall so damn far off our human rights podium that a place like Ecuador realises we're doing something wrong yet we our government does not.

And in a press release statement, Assange reminded everyone that while he is in a stressful situation, that everyone should think about Manning who has been held 800 days in American detention in deplorable conditions without trial.

So, what happens if they storm the embassy? They get a "Bad England" from the UN and that is pretty much it.

They aren't "threatening to storm" it. They're threatening to revoke its status as an embassy, which, while drastic, is perfectly within the host nations rights.

EDIT: Look, I want everyone to read this carefully.

Further EDIT: and this.

edited 16th Aug '12 2:18:46 PM by GameChainsaw

Mmm, more questions than answers.

Can someone give the run down on why they want to get this guy so badly?

Invented wikileaks. The US has a rageboner for him. And sweden wants him because of rape allegations

Julian Assange is, for the purposes of this extradition, wanted for the rape/sexual assault (I've seen it referred to as both; I presume rape is simply the type of sexual assault) of two women in Sweden. However, he is also wanted for his role in leaking embarrassing information from the US governments classified files, some of which, if I recall correctly, contained information that could put people in danger as well as just embarrassment. The fear is that if he is extradited to Sweden, he will then be taken, one way or another, to the US for trial, or worse, abducted by the CIA and taken that way.

It's a complicated story, and I've tried to present it in the most balanced way I can, and set my own opinion aside.

edited 16th Aug '12 2:31:18 PM by GameChainsaw

Did he leak anything that put UK citizens' lives in jeopardy?

If so, the UK has every right to kill him.

If they want him, that is Ok. But you can't simply undeclare an embassy. It doesn't work that way and the UK should know better. And I can't stop myself from thinking this whole thing was somehow related to the US wanting to ragebone the guy.

How else are they supposed to get him? If the Ecuadorians are apparently willing to shelter a wanted criminal inside their own embassy?

He leaked plenty of things to prove Gordon Brown was a liar. That probably earned him a few enemies.

There are other ways. Covert ways. If they wanted the guys so badly he would be already be in custody. No, they want him to be con custody and to threaten Ecuador at the same time.

Not that I am on Ecuador's side you know. I mean, all that " OMG YOU IMPERIALIST ASSHOLES ARE EVIL" sounds a lot like something Hugo chavez would say.

I don't count on the British government being that competent. It took some time to get the extradition organised. By that time Assange had entered the embassy.

edited 16th Aug '12 2:45:03 PM by GameChainsaw

True that. Remember when they shot a brazilian guy because they thought he was a TERRIST?

I mean, they could have asked "Hey, what is the name of that guy over there?".

... Yeah, rape allegations trigger a lot of jazz for me, so I'm with the UK on this one, even if they don't really want him for it and just want to put him away for embarassing them, rapists deserve to rot.

Basically, Sweden and requested that the UK turn him over to them for trial. The UK is currently engaged in a lengthy legal battle to determine whether they are actually obligated to do so, as some factions in the UK would prefer not to. Now until that battle ends, there is a chance that the UK is obligated to hand him over to Sweden, and if they allow him to leave the UK they will be unable to fulfill that obligation. So they are insisting he remain in the UK until the issue is resolved, while Ecuador is requesting that he be allowed to leave because in their mind the issue already is resolved.

Thing is, we don't actually know yet whether he is a rapist, and there are concerns that even if innocent he'll be convicted of rape as a "punishment" for his espionage offenses.

edited 16th Aug '12 2:52:17 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

Likewise, people who make false accusations of rape are scum for helping real rapists get away with it.

edited 16th Aug '12 2:54:18 PM by Michael

And that takes us to our next guy in the drama puddle. Why the hell did Ecuador even get into this?

Ehm, Mike, I don't think you can drown in acid.

edited 16th Aug '12 2:54:40 PM by ElRigo

You can, you just have to make sure they don't burn first.

...moving on, Ecuador... doesn't trust America, if I recall. At all. Or at least their current leader doesn't, and he seems to be convinced that America is behind this to get him for wikileaks. So they see it as protecting an innocent man.

edited 16th Aug '12 2:58:33 PM by GameChainsaw

I figured people would get Sidetracked by the Analogy, so I took that section out of my post before people commented on it. It added nothing.

No I mean, Acids are usually solid at room temperature. You CAN drown people in an acid solution, but its not the same.

UK has a law to revoke the embassy status only if the embassy is acting in a non-embassy way. The only way they can do that is to say that Ecuador granted asylum illegally to Assange (which is impossible since that goes by Ecuador law). Whether you agree with this probably depends on how much you like/hate Assange

EDIT: I don't want to be mean but you gotta be pretty oblivious to think that the rape charges are in any way real.

edited 16th Aug '12 3:03:27 PM by breadloaf

Explain please.

edited 16th Aug '12 3:07:07 PM by GameChainsaw

The thread in OTC wasn't opened because we already have this thread about the guy. If you want to discuss him, take it there.

The rape charges?

Okay one is a fan girl that was chasing after him and then after having sex with him multiple times found out that he was also sleeping with another woman. Then there were rape allegations from her after this. Unless she somehow managed to go to his hotel room with dozens of witnesses seeing her trying to get in his pants several times over the course of a few weeks and having intercourse every time, and then suddenly rape occurred, this makes little sense at all. It's a shame for people who are real victims of rape.

The second one is a feminist politician (the other woman :/) who allowed him to stay at her place for some time during his conferences. After some time they apparently slept with each other. She complains that he cause a condom to deliberately break during intercourse.

Was he a jackass? Yes. But rapist? No.

EDIT: I didn't realise it existed since it was over 2 years old.

edited 16th Aug '12 3:09:44 PM by breadloaf