Julian Assange Explains WikiLeaks Disclosure...

[Stavros]

Most of you will have read that Assange walked into the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London to claim and then receive political asylum. It has raised some interesting issues of international diplomatic law. I wonder though if Britain were to make it clear that it was going to take action Ecuador might wonder how important Assange is, and whether or not he is worth the risk. However, the President, Rafael Correa who seems to be part of the anti-American bloc one associates with Hugo Chavez, seems to relish the prospect of a conflict with Britain -Ecuador has backed Argentina's claims to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas (see the link below), so oddly enough Assange could find himself being used as a political football -whichever way you look at it, I wonder just how important he is. Had he died of a heart attack last year, would Wikileaks have survived? Apparently he has few backers in Sweden, which may be why he is afraid of going there to face the allegations of rape.

For some Ecuador might be yet another example of the 'Resource curse' that accompanies petroleum development. Oil development has empowered the institutions f the state at the expense of the people, notably those in the interior, notwithstanding Ecuador's legal battles with Texaco and Chevron. The third largest producer in the Southern Cone, most of its exports go to China, which has invested heavily in the country. A link to the profile of Ecuador's oil economy follows the Assange link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...assange-asylum

http://www.eia.gov/cabs/Ecuador/Full.html

[Ben]

[Ben]

[hippifried]

The Brts aren't going to invade the Ecuadoran embassy. That would be an act of war. Why? To retieve someone who's been granted political assylum? Another foreigner no less. So he can be extradited to another country over charges for which he has not been indicted? So that country #2 can extradite him to country #3 to face other charges for which he hasn't been indicted? This whole thing is bogus.

[Stavros]

In fact, a clause in the 1987 Diplomatic and Consular Act does give the British Government the right to enter Embassy and Consular premises if it believes that said premises are not being used for the purposes they are there for under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the agreement that governs Embassies and Consulates. The 1987 Act was introduced after the Policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead during an anti-Qadhafi demonstration in St James's Square where the Libyan People's Bureau was based at the time. It was claimed the shot was fired from within the Embassy; in the subsequent siege the Govt of Margaret Thatcher reached an agreement with Qadhafi to evacuate the embassy, but the sight of the staff walking out one by one to get on a bus that took them to the airport and home, caused an enormous amount of outrage here (even though it has since been claimed the gunman left by the back door not long after firing the shot). The obvious problem is that the 1987 Act conflicts with the 1961 Agreement, and it didn't help that the British Foreign Office -or rather, William Hague [against the advice of his civil servants] blasted the Ecuadorians with the threat of entry instead of approaching it diplomatically.

It seems to me that by delivering a political speech critical of the British, Swedish and US Governments from the Balcony of the Embassy, Assange was allowed to use Embassy premises for something the Embassy is not there for. Is someone from Ecuador allowed to stand at the same balcony and call for the abolition of the Royal Family? Suppose that Embassy or any other, opened its windows and began throwing out counterfeit money -daft examples, but what happens if an Embassy is used for something other than its purpose?

I don't know what is happening, but I assume the feeling is that eventually Assange will get bored -but will he try and make a run for it?

[hippifried]

What if?????
What a bunch of bullshit!

Ecuador hasn't done anything to warrant such rude behavior toward them. Granting political assylum to someone whom they perceive as needing it is a legitimate function of the embassy. We do it all the time. So do the Brits & the Swedes. What? Suddenly the rules change because they're interfering with plans to screw Assange? All anybody has on him is a broken rubber. Is there an actual indictment on him from Sweden, or is this all just a ruse to get him turned over to the US? There's no indictment here either. What law got broken by releasing those emails or anything else that was sent to him unsolicited?

[Stavros]

I think you do understand the situation, Hippifried -Assange arrived in the UK and was then asked by Sweden to extradite him to face charges -I have no idea if there is any substance in them, but the UK police arrested Assange and granted him bail pending a decision-when they decided to extradite him he decamped to the Ecuadorian Embassy. I can see there is a suggestion of harassment, because Assange is viewed as a reckless pest for publishing leaked documents. Whatever, the fact is that the UK has extradited people directly to the US, I think it is 99 since 2004, seven since the start of 2012. Fewer extraditions happen the other way. The key point as has been made before, is that if Assange is innocent, then what is the problem in him going to Sweden? As for Ecuador, I find it hard to think anyone would depict it as a haven of freedom and democracy, and allowing someone to make political speeches from a balcony window would not be tolerated in Washington DC, would it?

[hippifried]

...allowing someone to make political speeches from a balcony window would not be tolerated in Washington DC, would it?

Huh? What would make you think that? What could they possibly do about someone speaking from what is essentially a foreign nation? I didn't see the speech. Who was the audience? Just anybody on the street, or was the press invited for a statement? Until he got off of Btitish soil, he couldn't really say anything.

All this has gotten totally out of hand. If Sweden is willing to entertain this bogus rape charge, then there's no reason to go back. If the Brits are willing to entertain the bogus charges, in order to keep the vengeance chain going, then he doesn't owe them anything either. Maybe a bank in Ecuador will allow his donations to start coming back in. Say what you want about Ecuador, but they're not part of this muoltinational persecution being carried out by the so called bastions of liberty.. Where was all this outrage when the global warming emails were released by a third party? Oh that's right. Those folks didn't have the wherewithal to bring the ower of NATO down on the leakers.

[Stavros]

Hippifried, you may or may not know that 'errant Embassies' have form in London -during the Great People's Cultural Revolution in China in 1966 there were at one time scuffles between the police and Embassy staff on Portland Place (opposite the HQ of the BBC) who deliberately flouted diplomatic convention by standing on the steps of the Embassy or at the back entrance -which technically was not China- waving the Red Book, chanting slogans, and being filmed thus proving to the revolutionaries back home that they were in the vanguard of the movement abroad.

In 1979 members of the 'Democratic Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Arabistan' stormed the Iranian Embassy and remained there for six days before the SAS entered it, killing all but one of the 'Front' (he is in prison) -its never been clear to me who these people were and whether or not they were an Iranian or an Iraqi front outfit.

In 1984 a former Nigerian Minister, Umaru Dikko, who had fled to the UK in 1983 when the government of Shehu Shagari was overthrown by the military, was kidnapped by Nigerians working for the new government. They picked him up on the street and, with the help of the Mossad, Dikku was drugged, and taken into the Nigerian Embassy. He was then put in a 'diplomatic crate' which was taken to Heathrow Airport before the police were tipped off and he was rescued.

And I do think that if Embassies in Washington DC opened their windows to broadcast political messages it would at least be seen as a breach of protocol.

I am not opposed to Freedom of Information, and Ecuador in 2004 did pass a transparency law, something that does not exist in most other South American countries, but it has not been translated into the 'forest languages' so that people living in the Amazon Basin don't know what their rights are unless someone else tells them. I don't suppose any system is perfect.

I have no idea if the allegations made against Assange in Sweden are likely to stand up in court. Assange is not bigger than the 'message', had he died of a heart attack last year Wikileaks would probably still be there.

[broncofan]

I believe it is a stretch to say that Assange has violated the Espionage Act given his status as a Journalist and the fact that he was not the primary source of the information.