UPDATE
100,000 HITS IN 100 MINUTES CRASHED THE SITE. WE DON’T KNOW YET IF GENUINE INTEREST OR DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK. OUR BRILLIANT WEBHOSTS HAVE QUADRUPLED THE RESOURCE, BUT IF YOU CAN HELP TAKE THE STRAIN BY REPOSTING I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL.
I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.
This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most subscribed single international treaty in the world.
The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or qualification elsewhere in the treaty.
Article 22
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.
The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.
The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.
I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in Number 10.
There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles.
100,000 hits in 100 minutes probably due to RT News putting a link to your site – and this page! – on their “live update” site:
http://rt.com/news/ecuador-decides-assange-fate-813/
(You make an appearance at “11:28 GMT”: “Craig Murray, British political activist and former ambassador to Uzbekistan, says if UK police storm the Ecuadorian embassy, British diplomats worldwide will be left with no protection.”).
But the two Swedish women involved in this affair haven’t complained that Assange raped, assaulted, or molested them. Read the leaked transcripts of the police interviews, nowhere do they make these claims or allegations. Surely this is an important ‘detail’ which has been completely ignored by the UK media and the UK courts, but of course the UK courts haven’t looked at the merits of the case, because there is no ‘case’ as Assange hasn’t been charged with anything in Sweden.
The reason he hasn’t been charged is because the state’s case is so weak and flimsy and the evidence of a crime doesn’t exist and the women’s version of events cannot be proved, and if the Swedes charged Assange with using a split condom, and somehow this has morphed into rape, the lack of strength of the Swedish case would be clear to everyone, so they prefer not to issue specific charges Assange can answer, and instead leave things open, as using a split condom isn’t rape, something even the dumbest UK journalist could understand.
And what’s chilling about this affair is how little scrutiny the UK press has subjected the Swedish rumours and allegations to. Why? Because if one did scrutinize them their patent absurdity would become apparent and questions would be raised about the quality of the Swedish case and Swedish justice, that can allow such a feeble case to grow out of all proportion on political grounds, sexual political grounds.
@ David Mills,
You said “I actually view the possibility that the suggested action by the UK is being considered as at the least unwise and at the worst dangerous. As for legality, I leave that to lawyers.”
Myself a lawyer, I am appalled at this decision.
The decision has discernible aspects:-
1. The international political dimension; and
2. The legal dimension; and
3. The domestic political level.
Craig Murray has indicated that political pressure has caused Cameron to come to a decision. Given the wider implications of this decision, and with due regard for Executive authority, in a democratic society, should one not be questioning whether first Parliament, and then the Cabinet should have a say? Surely, since the authorities know where Assange is, then there need not be a rush to ignorant behaviour and international embarrassment and disgrace. If done, this will reflect extremely poorly on Britain, especially the fact of HMG consistently reminding other countries of their duties under human rights and international law. Consider this:-
“A statement has been issued by the Foreign Secretary. “The UK does not accept the principle of diplomatic asylum. It is far from a universally accepted concept: the United Kingdom is not a party to any legal instruments which require us to recognise the grant of diplomatic asylum by a foreign embassy in this country. Moreover, it is well established that, even for those countries which do recognise diplomatic asylum, it should not be used for the purposes of escaping the regular processes of the courts.” Thus, the British government is not prepared to give Assange safe passage from the UK.
http://obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/julian-assange-quo-vadis.html
Imperial hypocrisy reigns supreme. Harpie made this observation:-
Pinochet had women raped by dogs and Britain wouldn’t extradite him;
Now, by contrast with due regard for the Bill of Rights 1688 ( UK) and subsequently – the First Amendment of the American Constitution ( free speech) can one now weigh the implications where a barbaric torturer had been protected by HMG, while a person who in point of law, both in the UK and US can sustain his position by reference to the Glorious Revolution and expressions in law mirrored in the American Constitution is to be yielded as sacrificial offering – how does one sustain credibility with regard to the government actions then with Pinochet and the actions now with Assange? I guess, a clever lawyer, in defence of HMG, might be able to provide some precedent to explain the stark contrast between one set of events ( Pinochet) versus the other, and might de facto or de jure give some validity to HMG’s proposed actions. The fact is that with matters such as the Matrix-Churchill scandal; the Kuwaiti dissident who was shipped over to the Caribbean nation of Dominica to permit HMG continuing its arms sales, under threat that if the UK continued to give asylum, there would be no more contracts for arms, serves well to exemplify some of the double standards which have been applied.
Since sex has entered the discussion, I raise an argument that the alleged sexual violations of Assange, might be contrasted with the animal rapes effected by Pinochet. By contrast one might note:-
Assange has told the Swedish police and authorities that he is willing to be interviewed – a perfectly reasonable offer.
Pinochet, a torturer and murderer, was, alas, not ever able or willing to address the allegations against him and HMG protected him to the ultimate degree.
What credible explanation exists for the inaction of the Swedish authorities in refusing to advance the matter by taking the first step in the judicial process of interviewing the accused man?
We live in a corrupt world and demonstrably HMG is again heading down that path.
On the second limb, this would be a flagrant legal violation, and I fully endorse the analysis of Craig Murray as being accurate. There is a legal right for the Ecuadorian Embassy to grant asylum and there is no violation under law that the Ecuadorians have breached, such that the expressed intention of HMG (or – more accurately – Cameron) would make the storming of the Ecuadorian Embassy legal. Consider the furore in 1979 in Iran when the Iranians stormed the American Embassy at the time of the revolution. In these peaceful times, and by parity of reasoning – does anyone in Government realise the serious and lasting implications of what is about to be done? One can clearly see the equivalence of the US embrace of the torturer, the Shah of Iran, and the embrace of HMG of Pinochet. One disingenuous route the government may take is to revoke diplomatic status – then storm the Ecuadorian Embassy – then tell the populace that HMG acted lawfully, because the Ecuadorians at the time of the invasion of the Embassy Ecuador was not protected under international law.
I anticipate that the British public will be supportive of Assange and there will then be protests and direct clashes with the police when many decent people seek to assist Assange.
CB
Her Majesty’s official opposition appear to be remarkably quiet in all of this. Speaks volumes really!!
All we get in the States is bullshit about the rapist and his whorish dissemination of
State secrets. The Denial of Service is probably compliments of Thomas Bodstrom.
Eurotunnel: the funniest thing with Eurotunnel is (should I write this here?):
:
– You don’t give passenger names when booking the place on the train (and the train ticket can also be purchased on the spot) – the company is not interested in passenger names.
:
– Border Police usually DON’T BOTHER CHECKING YOUR PASSPORT. Not even looking at you. They don’t even bother coming up to your car – they just wave you to drive past. You must be aware you are leaving paradise anyway.
:
– Your passport is checked only by the French (and they take quite some time in this) – but only after leaving British territory (but still on this side of the Channel). No checks on the other side of the tunnel – just drive off the train and on the motorway.
So Hague says:-
“Diplomatic immunity exists to allow embassies and diplomats to exercise proper diplomatic functions, and the harboring of alleged criminals or frustrating a due legal process in a country is not a permitted function of diplomats under the Vienna Convention,”
So – tell me now – how does HMG’s postion now square with Pinochet then?
Louise Mensch ist kein Mensch (although, for all I know, the neuter “das Mensch” may apply to her).
Louise Mensch: UK Should Cut Ties With Ecuador Over Julian Assange Asylum :
William Jefferson Fourteeen Pints Hague to you, Jives. Fact is, the septics don’t need ANYTHING on the bombastic little phoney. He loves them with a passion. Think Atlantic Bridge.
(btw, where’s Werritty?)
Lord (Alex) Carlisle (LibDem, sorry) currently opining on R4 that there is no basis in UK law for forcing entry to the embassy, and that Ecuador would be able to sue, and win, if that happened. Concluded with some abuse of the Ecuador govt, but points made above seem to be accurate. In a nutshell, Vienna Convention trumps Thatcher’s shitty little Act (which was designed for major criminals). Richard Ottaway being very bland about US dimension…”we can’t make conditions..” IOW, we don’t give a fuck if the Yanks get him, so long as it doesn’t look like we did it. (We don’t want more riots?)
Re. Mensch; complete idiocy of the woman should now be clear for all to see. Ashcroft must be really chuffed at the impact of her social networking on the choice of Corby’s next MP:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-will-lose-corby-byelection-following-resignation-of-louise-mensch-8053428.html
Billy Fourteen Pints of Richmond, is to be Lord high Bumbastic now?
,
This really takes the cake, total lawlessness, and cocking a snook at any and all international conventions, what dark era we are living in?
,
To find human rights are respected much more in the developing world than they are respected in the lands of the “freedomfrie loving, apple pie eating, and cola swigging” patriots?
Komodo,
Never mind Mensch bint, what about the fields of Gove that are springing around the towns and cities?
,
Here is a useful time line of the Assange case.
.
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
.
It also gives some details on how the trial of those accused of sex crimes is handled. The trial is held behind closed doors, with a judge and three lay persons. The lay persons are appointed by political parties and are often members of the party that appoints them. The secrecy means that the public is not made aware of any weaknesses in the case. Any appeal is also held behind closed doors. Scary – guilty until found guilty by the sound of it.
Slightly OT, I was googling on Assange & Wikileaks, & was reminded of Echelon & Duncan Campbell’s role in revealing this.
What has happened to Campbell, I can see nothing recent about or by him?
Cameron’s Obama’s butler.
You Brits are now America’s W.O.G.s.
Too bad asskissing’s not an Olympic event.
Pass it on: useful summary –
http://notesonwikileaks.tumblr.com/post/15251907983/assange-extradition-fact-sheet
Dear me, I know the Guardian can be crap at times, but this evening it has released an editorial coming out against Assange, and saying that he should be repatriated to Sweden. They say “Since Mr Assange is wanted by the courts in Sweden…” which I think they can’t even themselves believe.
.
I am dumbfounded.
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-wikileaks-refugee-protection
I note with interest a couple of commentators suggest that WikiLeaks may be a CIA front or ‘psy-op’ operation.
.
I know little about the WikiLeaks organisational structure, my own confidence is in the cryptographer and brilliant researcher, Julian Assange. Julian is somewhat anonymous with a ‘previous’ resembling ‘shades of grey’ and with little insight one can gain by reading his few past publications.
.
As a cryptographer myself I do know Julian Assange expressed an interest in variants of NSA’s Koken loop crypto-algorithm. I hoped to allure him into trying to break a few recorded Delta-modulated and encrypted communications from the morning of September 11th 2001. This led to my own research into Julian which directed me to his acquaintance and stimulus, George Soros. George funded some research into the catastrophe at the World Trade Center believing the official account was a collusion in plan. George said the Iraq war was illegal and immoral and he despised George W Bush and was prepared to sacrifice all his wealth if his [Bush’s] bid for reelection in 2004 could be guaranteed a defeat.
.
After this research my initial ‘bad vibes’ about Julian Assange turned through 180 as I realise he has achieved an immeasurable victory against deception and censorship, be it corporate media, government agencies and even our despised secret services cover-ups most notably complicity in torture, humiliation and immorality.
” I know the Guardian can be crap at times” What is it about the ‘status quo’ you don’t understand/
If you dare tickle the tail of the Dragon, you must be prepared for an onslaught. The Information Age is a structure of Power. He who controls the info is King.
I have re-posted this article to my blog here – http://blacksheepdiary.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally-craig-murray/
I hope that is of some assistance.
Huh? A desire for ministerial salaries and privileges is all it takes to acquiesce to the smashing of an accord that must inevitably bite you in the arse? How does that make any sense? Surely, in this case they could eat their cake and have it too? It would be the easiest thing in the world for the given ministers to stand up to the US, stick by the convention, and still retain their privileges? It’s a thing they do daily, surely?
.
And all this over Assange? Clearly Assange has the approval of the bloc-media. We only know who he is because they want us to. The media airs his ‘revelations’ in precisely the same way that they utterly fail to air equally as spectacular revelations that have appeared on any number of other sites for years. To give Assange the same treatment that they gave Scott Ritter (say) would be as easy as blinking. A thing they do daily…
.
As for ‘might’, you’re joking surely? What might does the UK have in this respect? None at all? Who could they punish for a tit-for-tat reprisal, and how could they do it? They are a minnow – if minnows were capable of wagging fingers that is (phoxinus phingerinus, ha ha) – but beyond that why would anyone fear them?
.
For mine, two conclusions are inescapable. The smashing of the convention is the point of the exercise. Secondly, this is driven not by any laughable concern for a loss of privilege but rather by a far more powerful interests, ones that clearly supercede both the UK’s (or any other country’s) sovereign rights and interests, and that clearly would view the destruction of an otherwise necessary, sensible, and time-honoured mechanism for cooperation between nation states as a good thing.
.
And no it’s not the US. This smashing of the convention will be non-partisan biter-of-every-arse, with the US not just ‘not-least-amongst-them’, but foremost amongst them. And so! The question is: in whose interests is this being done?
Sexual political pressure is employed wherever people feel powerful enough to get away with it. Utilised by the UK FCO on Craig and utilised by political Islam in Syria. Forbidden in secular and Islamic Law equally.
.
Diplomatic sanctuary is inviolable in secular and Islamic Law equally. Empires have been destroyed in revenge for murdering envoys. e.g. Ghengis Kahn
.
It’s no good wittering about these powerful people regretting their law-breaking. In the new world order existing international laws are garbage. We’re going to have to accept the new rules, long before the likes of WHague have to eat poo.
.
They will regret it, same as they regretted feeding cows on sheep brains, but they will say that nobody could have predicted it.
.
The fact that Julian Assange has cracked codes does not mean that he is not part of psy-ops. He could easily have been given the codes in order to give his biassed leaks credibility.
.
This is the time of fitna/ confusion. The rules for dealing with confusion are that 1/ you keep youself informed and 2/ you follow your instincts completely even against your supposed friends and 3/ you stay close to the touchstone of Divine revelation.
.
Plenty more to come so enjoy the fitna roller-coaster fair-ground. Coming to your town soon.
guess we are going to have to issue new flags .. with 51 stars for our new state.
” with 51 stars for our new state.” Puerto Rico has dibs, on that.
Billy “14 pints” Hague: “The UK does not accept the principle of diplomatic asylum.”
.
Can anyone think of any example of any country whose government accepted an individual was legitimately seeking asylum from their jurisdiction? But it’s jolly useful not to accept this principle. We get to refuse the asylum seeker that we don’t approve of, and deny any of our own have any basis whatsoever.
.
What are small countries with fragile governments supposed to hold up as a standard, when the “mother of democracy” carries on like this? Would any politician/leader get more than snorts of “dream on” should they try to adopt decent standards in such a country?
The Irish Times Editorial gets it almost right.
“… the decision by Ecuador yesterday to stand up to British bullying and to grant WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange political asylum is to be applauded. And it should be strongly diplomatically supported by the Government, whatever the merits of Assange’s own case. Once London’s threat had been made to revoke under a 1987 law the Ecuadorean embassy’s diplomatic status on the dubious grounds that it had ceased “to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post”, Quito had no political choice.
“It had to stand by Assange, who may now face the prospect of living in the embassy for many years as the British, insisting on their obligation to extradite him to Sweden to face questioning over alleged rapes, are most unlikely to grant him safe passage to Ecuador. It would not be unknown – in 1978 two Pentecostal families from Chernogorsk in Siberia burst into the US Moscow embassy seeking help to leave the country. They would be there in the embassy under US protection for five years. Such protection, like that extended by the US recently in Beijing to blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, is an important dimension of the diplomacy of democratic countries. It is being jeopardised by the dangerous British assertion that it can unilaterally define what constitutes diplomatic activity…”
The editorial goes slightly downhill after that but that’s pretty good.
There have been 11 versions of the BBC report, so far. Note how they have tickled it up each time in order to strengthen their support of HMG.
.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/545006/diff/10/11
.
Apologies for my earlier misspelling of Correa’s name. I must have been thinking of Gordon Correra, the BBC’s special spookwatcher!
.
It should be interesting to see what comes out of this meeting on Sunday –
.
The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) has convened an “extraordinary meeting” in Ecuador on Sunday to discuss the situation at the embassy.
.
A statement released on the website of the foreign ministry of Peru, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the intergovernmental union, said: “The Foreign Ministry of Peru lets public opinion know that, in concordance with the statutory responsibilities of the temporary presidency of UNASUR, at the behest of the Republic of Ecuador and after consulting member states, an extraordinary meeting of the Counsel of Foreign Ministers of the Union has been convened on Sunday August 19 in the city of Guayaquil, Ecuador.
.
“The meeting has been requested with the intention of considering the situation raised at the embassy of Ecuador in the United Kingdom.”
(Guardian)
.
Julian Assange is said to be making a statement, also on Sunday, at 2pm.
.
I assume that the place is fully bugged by our friends in SIS.
I like the term skulldugger, seems to be a fine term to be used. IF is a huge word and a lot of effort seems to be going into it here. Facts are what is needed. The US has been doing a lot of things that are coming to light that the American people are appalled by. To have someone actually show the Sleeping Giant(the actual people of the US) that their government is not the Knight in Shining Armor is not a good thing for those in power. Right now it is an election year, those in power wish to stay in power. They are not about to do anything to wake the Giant up or to give weight to what a lightbearing might be saying. I would be worried about Britain, are their people as powerless as it seems the US are? To yell the US pressured them, come on really? Its like the Devil made them do it. Brits are the ones who are going to face the consequences with their embassies, I think one would be emailing, texting,and phoning those who do make the decisions and let them know what you all feel about this.
No show without Aaronovitch the shill for the gangsters-in-charge. He says – “There’s no way our government can back down.” Quite revolting. On Channel 4.
.
Vaughan Smith v David Aaranovitch on Assange http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EDd4Y4PMSyU