Still wanted in the UK though

The Metropolitan Police in London said, however, that they still planned to carry out the warrant issued after Mr. Assange failed to surrender in June 2012, and that they would be “obliged” to execute the warrant if he were to leave the Ecuadorean Embassy, where Mr. Assange sought asylum.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/worl ... .html?_r=0

So, what is going on? This sounds really weird. Why continue with this, for a minor offense and keep the 24h watch outside the embassy, which must cost millions a year. Would there be some truth in it that the US is behind this, all this time?

Of course the U.S. was behind this. I voted for Obama and I would vote for him again considering the lack of quality of his opponents (McCain and Romney), but I hold this against him. Obama's Administration was not one of transparency as promised. And he shouldn't have gone so hard against whistle-blowers.

As for Assange, well, I think he's a deranged man. But I have no problem with the information (military malfeasance) he published.

Yep this is an interesting situation, as there's no legal reason to keep harassing Assange anymore the only possible conclusion is that the British want to arrest him to hand him over to the US. Wouldn't be surprising if those individuals who blamed Assange for sexual assault were also bribed by Americans, or were even working for them.

mbmbos wrote:

Of course the U.S. was behind this. I voted for Obama and I would vote for him again considering the lack of quality of his opponents (McCain and Romney), but I hold this against him. Obama's Administration was not one of transparency as promised. And he shouldn't have gone so hard against whistle-blowers.

Not to go off-topic too much, but there's a bit of a gulf between what you describe above and the way that then-President Obama commuted Bradley Manning's 35-year sentence shortly before leaving office. I'm struggling to see how he was able to reconcile the two things. You're right, of course, about the fact that his administration went after whistle-blowers, but based on his commutation of Manning, I wonder if it was an issue he was genuinely conflicted about.

Assange is a pig of a man. His "rape" was based on him having sex with a woman without using a condom. Doing so without the woman's permission is considered rape. Doing so without a condom is also very stupid.

So Assange spent how many years in the embassy? And he might not be totally clear legally with his potential involvement in the election.

KLDC10 wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

You're right, of course, about the fact that his administration went after whistle-blowers, but based on his commutation of Manning, I wonder if it was an issue he was genuinely conflicted about.

Agreed. However, I'm not sure if he wasn't "conflicted," as it were, with his own conscience or rationale. Obama was nothing if not a pragmatist. He went into office speaking strongly about transparency, accountability of the military and a global peace strategy. I suspect he learned very quickly that military industrialist and spook organizations have tremendous powers in the U.S., and he couldn't fight them and Congress too.

pvjin wrote:

Yep this is an interesting situation, as there's no legal reason to keep harassing Assange anymore

Apart from the fact that he's wanted for breaking UK law? How dare the police "harass" him for breaking the law!

Didn't Assange offer to be handed over to US authorities if Bradley Manning was pardoned?

http://news.sky.com/story/julian-assang ... e-10733049

His behavior now clearly shows that he's simply a coward trying to avoid standing trial for the things he did.

I can think of plenty of US citizens through the years that have avoided prosecution abroad with the full support of their home country and populace.

scbriml wrote:

Apart from the fact that he's wanted for breaking UK law? How dare the police "harass" him for breaking the law!

What law did he break? Did he perhaps drive over the speed limit? The UK police should specify what he is wanted for so people can judge whether it's a good justification to waste a lot of tax payer's money on 24/7 watch on the embassy.

pvjin wrote:

What law did he break? Did he perhaps drive over the speed limit? The UK police should specify what he is wanted for so people can judge whether it's a good justification to waste a lot of tax payer's money on 24/7 watch on the embassy.

He violated his bail conditions by failing to turn up in court when he was meant to and he caused those who had stood surety to lose their money. Westminster Magistrates' Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange after he failed to surrender to the court on the 29 June 2012, that warrant is still active and the police are obliged to make an arrest if they are able to.

pvjin wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Apart from the fact that he's wanted for breaking UK law? How dare the police "harass" him for breaking the law!

What law did he break? Did he perhaps drive over the speed limit? The UK police should specify what he is wanted for so people can judge whether it's a good justification to waste a lot of tax payer's money on 24/7 watch on the embassy.

He failed to show up for a court appointment...
That has been in the news right from the bat.....

scbriml wrote:

pvjin wrote:

Yep this is an interesting situation, as there's no legal reason to keep harassing Assange anymore

Apart from the fact that he's wanted for breaking UK law? How dare the police "harass" him for breaking the law!

Well, he has been illegally detained by the UK government for more than half a decade.

Best regards
Thomas

Thousands of people are wanted for the same reason, usually not much is spent on looking for them, unless it's for a grave crime. Here he's wanted for not showing up...

Can't the government charge him for the amount spent guarding the embassy 24/7 for 5 years and be done with?
I am sure Putin would happily pick up the bill.
And just let the courts decide if he is going to be extradited to the US or not? Let him out of the embassy, forbid him from leaving the country and let justice take its course.

pvjin wrote:

What law did he break? Did he perhaps drive over the speed limit? The UK police should specify what he is wanted for so people can judge whether it's a good justification to waste a lot of tax payer's money on 24/7 watch on the embassy.

You don't appear to know much about the case, do you?

He jumped bail, ran and hid in the Ecuador Embassy after he'd exhausted all legal processes to avoid extradition to Sweden to face rape charges. The international arrest warrant against him was only withdrawn yesterday by the Swedes. The police guard on the embassy was removed in October 2015 after an estimated £12 million had been spent. It's peanuts.

Even though he no longer faces extradition to Sweden, he will still be arrested when he leaves the embassy for breach of his bail conditions.

tommy1808 wrote:

Well, he has been illegally detained by the UK government for more than half a decade.

That's complete and utter bollocks! His "detainment" is entirely voluntary on his part. He can leave the embassy any time he wants.

From what I could find almost 70,000 criminals a year are jumping bail in the UK. Almost as many as people actually in jail.

tommy1808 wrote:

Well, he has been illegally detained by the UK government

If that were true he could have been extradited a long time ago. However, the facts do not match your claim. I don't know whether he is guilty of the rape allegations but what is clear is that he did not appear in the UK court when he was supposed to. It wasn't a simple case of missing an appointment due to a cold or being late to catch a train. He deliberately and with premeditation decided to not appear and chose to go the the Embassy of Ecuador. Far from being "detained" he has chosen to impose upon the hospitality of Ecuador. He could have left at any time and appeared in court. He chose not to.

All along he has attempted to justify his choice on the basis of a fear that he would be extradited to the United States. Whether he is actually at risk remains open to question. There has been no indication that the US has requested his extradition, nor any indication that the UK would grant any such request. It is known that the US had previously asked the Australian government whether it would oppose Assange's extradition, as he is an Australian citizen, but while that indicates that the US was considering a request it is not proof that they wish to proceed with one.

Aesma wrote:

Thousands of people are wanted for the same reason, usually not much is spent on looking for them, unless it's for a grave crime. Here he's wanted for not showing up...

He didn't "not show up" - he ran away to escape judicial process after he'd failed to overturn the court's ruling that he had to be sent to Sweden.

He had an international arrest warrant against him on charges of rape. Was that not serious enough for you?

tommy1808 wrote:

Well, he has been illegally detained by the UK government for more than half a decade.

Best regards
Thomas

Which branch of the UK government is detaining him? Where is he being detained by the UK Government?
I thought he was "detaining himself" in the Ecuador Embassy, to avoid prosecution, which has nothing to do with the UK Government at all.
What you state is incorrect.

The UK is well known for letting the CIA operate on its soil and doesn't want to guarantee protection from the US to Assange.

BTW I was hearing on the radio Assange's French lawyer saying he was asking for asylum to France (no extradition treaty with the US). What is funny is that Assange said in an interview with a Russian paper some days before our election that he had compromising emails on now president Emmanuel Macron. Arrogant much ?

Aesma wrote:

The UK is well known for letting the CIA operate on its soil and doesn't want to guarantee protection from the US to Assange.

We are? Do you have some examples?

Aesma wrote:

BTW I was hearing on the radio Assange's French lawyer saying he was asking for asylum to France (no extradition treaty with the US).

In order to get to France, he'd have to leave the Ecuador Embassy. He'll be arrested as soon as he does that.

scbriml wrote:

In order to get to France, he'd have to leave the Ecuador Embassy. He'll be arrested as soon as he does that.

but he is not being arbitrarily detained, he just can´t go anywhere. But he is not detained.

If i put a plastic bag over your head, you are not being murdered.......

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

In order to get to France, he'd have to leave the Ecuador Embassy. He'll be arrested as soon as he does that.

but he is not being arbitrarily detained, he just can´t go anywhere. But he is not detained.

If i put a plastic bag over your head, you are not being murdered.......

best regards
Thomas

If you voluntarily put a bag over your head, I am not murdering you.

The only time Assange was in actual detention was the week between his voluntary surrender at the issuing of the EAW and his bail hearing - throughout all of his appeals against the extradition he was on bail.

His seclusion in the Ecuadorian Embassy is entirely voluntary on his own behalf.

moo wrote:

His seclusion in the Ecuadorian Embassy is entirely voluntary on his own behalf.

Again, he couldn't go anywhere, but wasn't detained... right. He didn't go there "voluntarily", he was forced to go there in order not to be detained.
The UN has spoken, he has been arbitrarily detained.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

moo wrote:

His seclusion in the Ecuadorian Embassy is entirely voluntary on his own behalf.

Again, he couldn't go anywhere, but wasn't detained... right. He didn't go there "voluntarily", he was forced to go there in order not to be detained.
The UN has spoken, he has been arbitrarily detained.

Best regards
Thomas

The UN working group (a tiny group of people, hardly "the UN") ruling in this case is worthless because it considers the *entire* length of time, from initial arrest when the EAW is issued to the current moment where Assange is within the embassy, as "arbitrary detention", and in so doing it directly casts massive negative aspersions on every level of the British court system, which is nothing short of an insult to the UK.

But then you only need to look at who is on that UN working group to see that that was their point.

Assange was fleeing a valid arrest warrant, he is an illegal fugitive and should still answer for that. The only thing forcing him into the embassy was his own desire to not be extradited - that doesnt make it a valid action.

moo wrote:

The UN working group (a tiny group of people, hardly "the UN") ruling in this case is worthless because it considers the *entire* length of time, from initial arrest when the EAW is issued to the current moment where Assange is within the embassy, as "arbitrary detention", and in so doing it directly casts massive negative aspersions on every level of the British court system, which is nothing short of an insult to the UK.

It is the UN working group in charge of those questions, so as far as the UN goes, that is the word of god.

Assange was fleeing a valid arrest warrant, he is an illegal fugitive and should still answer for that. The only thing forcing him into the embassy was his own desire to not be extradited - that doesnt make it a valid action.

On the face of it that is correct, but of cause we both know that is nonsense. Not because the charge is nonsense, it may or may not, but because of the amount of money the UK is spending on arresting someone for *questioning*. Utterly disproportional. And since the UK government is on record saying that they would arrest him, even if the arrest is a violation of international law, due process of law is obviously not in the books for Asssange. Other governments get removed by force for that kind of stunt. If a legal body is on record saying that law plays no role in an arrest, the arrest warrant simply can´t be legal. Maybe in the UK, but North Korea also has arrest warrants and i am kinda sure we don´t believe those to be legal either.

He is arbitrarily detained.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

but he is not being arbitrarily detained

No he isn't, not by any definition. He put himself in that position, he wasn't forcibly inserted in the Ecuadorian embassy.

tommy1808 wrote:

he just can´t go anywhere

He can try and go anywhere he wants, nobody is stopping him leaving the embassy. He choses to stay there, despite his previous promise he'd give himself up if Manning was released.

tommy1808 wrote:

But he is not detained.

Glad you agree.

tommy1808 wrote:

The UN has spoken

Not the UN, but a UN Working Group with zero authority. Get back to us when there's a UN Security Council resolution on the issue.

scbriml wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

but he is not being arbitrarily detained

No he isn't, not by any definition.

That statement is obvious nonsense, the UN seems to have a definition by which he is.

tommy1808 wrote:

The UN has spoken

Not the UN, but a UN Working Group with zero authority. Get back to us when there's a UN Security Council resolution on the issue.

I am so glad you agree with Putin that the annexation of Crimea is legal. I am also glad to see that you think China harvesting organs from prisoners is legal.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

That statement is obvious nonsense

The only nonsense here is your insistence that he's held "against his will". The only person responsible for his situation is Assange. Regardless of what any UN committee says.

tommy1808 wrote:

I am so glad you agree with Putin that the annexation of Crimea is legal. I am also glad to see that you think China harvesting organs from prisoners is legal.

Yes, that obviously follows.

What I don't understand about this story is how is the Ecuadorian embassy benefiting from sheltering Assange? Is he paying them globs of money for safety and security?

LittleFokker wrote:

What I don't understand about this story is how is the Ecuadorian embassy benefiting from sheltering Assange? Is he paying them globs of money for safety and security?

Their president has been quite outspoken in his anti-US rhetoric, so allowing Assange to camp out the embassy was signposted as a supreme act of defiance against the US.

scbriml wrote:

Yes, that obviously follows.

At least you are being consistent in your support for human rights violations.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Yes, that obviously follows.

At least you are being consistent in your support for human rights violations.

Best regards
Thomas

Thomas, did you fail to note the sarcasm smilie? The post clearly indicates that your conclusion is non sequitur. To argue that as he is not being held against his wishes Assange is free to leave the embassy does not logically lead to support for Putin annexing Crimea. Particularly since Assange was given the chance to appear in court on previous occasions and chose not to reappear. He is the one who chose to immolate himself. He faces arrest due to his choosing to violate a court direction.

Humans have rights but they also have obligations. It isn't a denial of human rights if someone faces the consequences of the choice not to meet their obligations. If there has been a betrayal of so-called human rights, it is Assange's breach of trust with those who he received backing from in the form of securities for his appearance. When he chose to do a runner, they who put their trust in him lost considerable sums of money. Does that violation not matter to you?

RoySFlying wrote:

Thomas, did you fail to note the sarcasm smilie? The post clearly indicates that your conclusion is non sequitur. To argue that as he is not being held against his wishes Assange is free to leave the embassy does not logically lead to support for Putin annexing Crimea. Particularly since Assange was given the chance to appear in court on previous occasions and chose not to reappear. He is the one who chose to immolate himself. He faces arrest due to his choosing to violate a court direction.

Thank you. It really is that simple, yet some can't (or refuse) to see the wood for the trees.

The only person responsible for Assange's situation is the man himself.

So you're saying no US politician has promised to have him in a dark hole or summarily executed if the US can get its hands on him ?

tommy1808 wrote:

moo wrote:

The UN working group (a tiny group of people, hardly "the UN") ruling in this case is worthless because it considers the *entire* length of time, from initial arrest when the EAW is issued to the current moment where Assange is within the embassy, as "arbitrary detention", and in so doing it directly casts massive negative aspersions on every level of the British court system, which is nothing short of an insult to the UK.

It is the UN working group in charge of those questions, so as far as the UN goes, that is the word of god.

The UN.

The same people that have had Libya, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia on the UN Human Rights Council...

Yeah, thats definitely a "word of god" with some credibility there...

tommy1808 wrote:

Assange was fleeing a valid arrest warrant, he is an illegal fugitive and should still answer for that. The only thing forcing him into the embassy was his own desire to not be extradited - that doesnt make it a valid action.

On the face of it that is correct, but of cause we both know that is nonsense. Not because the charge is nonsense, it may or may not, but because of the amount of money the UK is spending on arresting someone for *questioning*.

Actually, its being spent to fulfil a *valid* European Arrest Warrant. Assange had multiple appeals over multiple years to try and make the arrest warrant invalid, and he couldn't.

Its valid, the UK is obliged to arrest him. The reasoning is all there in Assange case public court rulings, if you so inclined to actually read the legal rulings:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... dgment.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf

And since the UK government is on record saying that they would arrest him, even if the arrest is a violation of international law, due process of law is obviously not in the books for Asssange.

Wanna come up with a citation of that? Oh, and before you point to the working group on arbitrary detention, their findings aren't law, they aren't even legally binding on the UN.

tommy1808 wrote:

Other governments get removed by force for that kind of stunt. If a legal body is on record saying that law plays no role in an arrest, the arrest warrant simply can´t be legal. Maybe in the UK, but North Korea also has arrest warrants and i am kinda sure we don´t believe those to be legal either.

He is arbitrarily detained.

best regards
Thomas

Ahh, the whole circular argument - yeah, we already covered this elsewhere. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is not a legally binding body, the UK is not obliged to accede to its findings, it has no basis in UK law.

I'm not exactly sure who you think the UN is, but they don't pass laws - they get countries together and get them to pass cooperative treaties and agreements. There is no such agreement which makes the aforementioned working group a law making one by which member states are bound to. None at all.

So your argument there falls flat on its face - the working group can release all the findings it wants, its no more binding on the UK or any other country than a Greenpeace press release is.

Aesma wrote:

So you're saying no US politician has promised to have him in a dark hole or summarily executed if the US can get its hands on him ?

What difference does that make? Politicians from all sorts of countries make all sorts of threats that they have no ability to put into action. They're pandering to their domestic audience.

When and if Assange ever emerges from his self-induced 'exile', he will have to face British justice first.

When and if the US issues an extradition request against him, then it will be considered by the UK Government. Assuming such request meets the required standards, he would only be extradited if the US agreed that he wouldn't face execution if found guilty at trial.

scbriml wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So you're saying no US politician has promised to have him in a dark hole or summarily executed if the US can get its hands on him ?

When and if the US issues an extradition request against him, then it will be considered by the UK Government. Assuming such request meets the required standards, he would only be extradited if the US agreed that he wouldn't face execution if found guilty at trial.

Its important to note that if the US do issue an extradition request, Assange will have the same opportunities available to him to challenge such a request as he did against the Swedish EAW - except that this time he won't be granted bail, at all, no chance.

In fact, I think he would find it difficult to find bail sponsors, considering he screwed over the last lot (several people lost a *lot* of money in forfeited bail - even after trying to argue that it "wasn't their fault he skipped bail" at a bail forfeiture hearing...)

tommy1808 wrote:

On the face of it that is correct, but of cause we both know that is nonsense. Not because the charge is nonsense, it may or may not, but because of the amount of money the UK is spending on arresting someone for *questioning*. Utterly disproportional.

So are you suggesting that if someone jumps bail, they should be allowed to get away with it as long as they can run and hide for long enough? That would make a mockery of the justice system.

moo wrote:

Its important to note that if the US do issue an extradition request, Assange will have the same opportunities available to him to challenge such a request as he did against the Swedish EAW - except that this time he won't be granted bail, at all, no chance.

Of course he'll have due process. However, one significant avenue of appeal may have disappeared depending when this might happen. If Brexit is completed, he wouldn't have any right of appeal to the ECHR.

Agree that it's very unlikely any UK court would grant him bail. But that's another bed of his own making.

scbriml wrote:

moo wrote:

Its important to note that if the US do issue an extradition request, Assange will have the same opportunities available to him to challenge such a request as he did against the Swedish EAW - except that this time he won't be granted bail, at all, no chance.

Of course he'll have due process. However, one significant avenue of appeal may have disappeared depending when this might happen. If Brexit is completed, he wouldn't have any right of appeal to the ECHR.

Ahh, but all parties have now said that they will not withdraw from the ECHR as part of Brexit - which is doable since its not an EU body, its separate to the EU.

The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, not the European Union.

Assange didn't appeal to the ECHR this time round, mainly because his legal counsel were demolished in basically every argument that meant anything - the prevailing legal opinion is that he has no grounds to appeal to the ECHR.

Ecuador are seeking a mediator to try and resolve the Assange situation.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42629761

To be honest, I'm not sure what they are expecting here - Assange has most definitely broken UK law, even if the Swedish charges have been dropped. Ecuador wants free passage for Assange to Ecuador, which simply isn't going to happen...

New update on Assange:

His lawyers are asking a London court to withdraw his UK arrest warrant, claiming it has "lost its purpose".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42829690

Before the start of court proceedings, Mr Assange's lawyer Gareth Pierce told reporters the warrant should have "no status" because the proceedings in Sweden had come to an end.

Seems Assange and his lawyer have forgotten his warrant was issued because he jumped bail in the UK.

moo wrote:

To be honest, I'm not sure what they are expecting here - Assange has most definitely broken UK law, even if the Swedish charges have been dropped.

well.. he could offer a deal. He faces charges for jumping bail, and the UK government faces trial in front of a non UK court for illegally detaining him for years...

Ecuador wants free passage for Assange to Ecuador, which simply isn't going to happen...

legally Ecuador can arrange free passage for Assange any time they like, with some diplomatic earthquake for sure, but legal. The problem is that the UK government is on record saying that they intend to violate international law in case Ecuador decides to do so. Different from what many people believe, host countries have no say in who becomes a diplomatic courier, and they can´t be detained.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

moo wrote:

To be honest, I'm not sure what they are expecting here - Assange has most definitely broken UK law, even if the Swedish charges have been dropped.

well.. he could offer a deal. He faces charges for jumping bail, and the UK government faces trial in front of a non UK court for illegally detaining him for years...

Ecuador wants free passage for Assange to Ecuador, which simply isn't going to happen...

legally Ecuador can arrange free passage for Assange any time they like, with some diplomatic earthquake for sure, but legal. The problem is that the UK government is on record saying that they intend to violate international law in case Ecuador decides to do so. Different from what many people believe, host countries have no say in who becomes a diplomatic courier, and they can´t be detained.

best regards
Thomas

eh?

He's free to leave the comfort of the embassy anytime he wants. Nobody forced him to run and hide - It's only his perceived greatness in his own mind that he chose to hide and Ecuador was suckered into helping him in.

The Embassy is a flat - Not some grand building like the new American Embassy. To get from the Embassy to a diplomatic vehicle, he has to leave the protection of the embassy, step on UK soil, then into a car.

Once he steps onto UK soil, he's fair game.

tommy1808 wrote:

well.. he could offer a deal. He faces charges for jumping bail, and the UK government faces trial in front of a non UK court for illegally detaining him for years...

Yeah, that was bollocks the last time you said it, and it still is. When is this "trial" and in which non-UK "court"?

tommy1808 wrote:

legally Ecuador can arrange free passage for Assange any time they like, with some diplomatic earthquake for sure, but legal.

So on the one hand he's been "illegally detained" but on the other Ecuador can walk him out any time they like? And yet, in all the time he's been hiding from the law in their embassy, they haven't. Maybe they have more respect for diplomacy than you?

moo wrote:

The UN working group (a tiny group of people, hardly "the UN") ruling in this case is worthless because it considers the *entire* length of time, from initial arrest when the EAW is issued to the current moment where Assange is within the embassy, as "arbitrary detention", and in so doing it directly casts massive negative aspersions on every level of the British court system, which is nothing short of an insult to the UK.

Doing the "US poodle" has its price.
Whole thing was trumped up to in the end get US fingers on Assange.
( who imho is not a nice guy but doing a Good Thing (TM) here.)

scbriml wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

legally Ecuador can arrange free passage for Assange any time they like, with some diplomatic earthquake for sure, but legal.

So on the one hand he's been "illegally detained" but on the other Ecuador can walk him out any time they like? And yet, in all the time he's been hiding from the law in their embassy, they haven't.

It was considered at first, hence the UK said they don't care whatsoever which international treaties they had signed and ratified. They would illegally detain him if Ecuador made him a courier, Ecuador's right, completely within the law. He just chose to rather be detained in the embassy than in a prison.

Maybe they have more respect for diplomacy than you?

It's the utter lack of respect for law shown by the UK government that led to the situation. We've seen the same disrespect for treaties since the Brexit decission. Since Equadors only meaningful way to retaliate would have been arrrsting a UK diplomat, just trying was out if the question. Only trust the UK if you have collateral to keep them honest is the lesson learned from all those years.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

It was considered at first, hence the UK said they don't care whatsoever which international treaties they had signed and ratified.

Words and actions are entirely different and separate. I'm sure even you understand that.

tommy1808 wrote:

It's the utter lack of respect for law shown by the UK government that led to the situation.

More utter tosh from you.

He jumped bail when it became obvious he was going to be extradited to Sweden per the international arrest warrant issued against him on a charge of rape. He chose to run and hide in the Ecuadorian embassy. Nobody forced him there, only his own desperation to avoid facing his accuser in a court of law.

He's a lying coward who said he'd give himself up if Manning was freed. #StillWaiting

tommy1808 wrote:

Only trust the UK if you have collateral to keep them honest is the lesson learned from all those years.

Your dislike of the UK comes through in most of your posts on the subject.

When is the "trial" and in which non-UK "court"?

tommy1808 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

legally Ecuador can arrange free passage for Assange any time they like, with some diplomatic earthquake for sure, but legal.

So on the one hand he's been "illegally detained" but on the other Ecuador can walk him out any time they like? And yet, in all the time he's been hiding from the law in their embassy, they haven't.

It was considered at first, hence the UK said they don't care whatsoever which international treaties they had signed and ratified. They would illegally detain him if Ecuador made him a courier, Ecuador's right, completely within the law.

Treaties and conventions are not law, and have no basis in law in individual countries unless the signing countries own legal system says it does.

In the US, the President is allowed to bind Congress to treaties - but in the UK, it takes an act of Parliament, passing a new bill, to bring the treaty into force.

The bill that enacts the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations into UK law is The Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. This bill gives the UK government the right to reject any diplomatic status which is granted or inferred "improperly".

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations allows this modification, because in its preamble it outright states "Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States", which means that granting Assange any immunity or privilege at all which is inferred to the Ecuadorian mission is obviously done for the benefit of the individual, not the efficient performance of the function of the mission, and as such is null and void.

The British police would be well within their rights to arrest Assange the moment he stepped out of the embassy, take the diplomatic mail off him, hand it to the Embassies receptionist and walk away with Assange in handcuffs.

People do seem to like to make up seemingly interesting reasons for why the UK is in the wrong here, when they simply aren't.