British May Invade Ecuadorian Embassy To Arrest Assange.

by pat c Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:03

Film of police attacking peaceful protesters.

http://news.sky.com/story/973139/assange-fighting-erupt...bassy

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:41

This blatancy does more to expose the totalitarian nature of the NATO axis of virtue than all the protesters rolled together..

This will alienate a lot of British middle-ground political drifters...another fine foot-shot, Stanley...

Further proof of the oxymoronic label British Intelligence.

by pat c Thu Aug 16, 2012 13:47

Ecuador has granted asylum to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange two months after he took refuge in its London embassy while fighting extradition from the UK.

It said there were fears Mr Assange's human rights may be violated.

Foreign minister Ricardo Patino accused the UK of making an "open threat" to enter its embassy to arrest Mr Assange.
Mr Assange took refuge at the embassy in June to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over assault and rape claims, which he denies.

Announcing Ecuador's decision, Mr Patino said the country believed Mr Assange's fears of political persecution were "legitimate".

He said the country was being loyal to its "tradition" of protecting those who are vulnerable.

"We trust that our friendship with the United Kingdom will remain intact," he added.

Outside Ecuador's embassy in London, the BBC's James Robbins said news was slowly spreading through Mr Assange's assembled supporters.

Our correspondent said they were delighted, but the UK government is insisting it changes nothing.

They will still seek to arrest him and they will not grant him safe passage. If he steps out, he will be arrested.

by lefty Thu Aug 16, 2012 17:06

fair play to Rafael Correja. He is in a difficult position. Ecuador have some oil and are not friends of the US. He played it well but this threat forced his hand. He had little choice but to give full asylum immediately after that to make it a more serious breach if the UK entered the embassy. The usual pretty nasty child killing US Sanctions on Ecuador may follow this decision. All pretence and charade of justice and democracy in the UK/US has fallen. Maybe now more people will realise how the system really functions.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Aug 17, 2012 09:25

http://rt.com/news/assange-asylum-cold-war-883/

note the Anna Ardin background...shades of the Vanunu honeytrap

by Felix Quigley - 4international Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:53

http://4international.me/2012/08/17/we-trotskyists-on-4...ally/

We are proud Trotskyists and we have no interest whatsoever in the goings on in a bourgeois court in Sweden which wants Assange charged so that then he can be cleared and snuck across to the US where the Imperialist section of America will certainly execute him, or imprison him for 40 years (Jonathan Pollard is now in his 28th year and all Pollard did was stick up for Israel and the Jews AGAINST IRAN AND ANTISEMITISM.)

REASON THAT WE SUPPORT ASSANGE SO STRONGLY

We support Assange so strongly because he gave an enormous amount of information to the world, and we cannot survive in our battle against this horrific system of capitalism if we do not have ALL of the information that it is possible to have.

This is an issue for the working class in every country, and especially for the British workers, and above all the British trade Unions.

The British workers need to know every single detail of every intrigue that their rulers are entering into on the world scene.

This is the most reactionary, now decrepid, bloodthirsty ruling elite in the world. Their history in Ireland down the centuries…what can we say! But it is in the support for the Nazi Muslim Brotherhood in the “Arab Nightmare” and especially the murder of Muammar Gadhafi in Libya where they were at their worst.

We need to know every detail of this. By studying what Assange released we can learn their methods. The workers of the world can learn the lessons too!

When Lenin and Trotsky led the Russian Revolution they stated that there would be no secrets and that they would expose the Imperialists. The diplomatic bags were opened and the contents spilled to the workers of the world.

Assange is not a Marxist, Trotskyist and/or revolutionary.

No matter, his actions have been most progressive. We back him UNCONDITIONALLY

by skrypt_kyddie Fri Aug 17, 2012 17:06

Get real. Governments don't care that much about womens rights

The woman involved, Anna Ardin, is a CIA anti castro asset. Its well known.

More info here...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/09/14/assange-beseiged/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/12/03/julian-assange-w...live/

And NOBODY is ever extradited for simple questioning...a quick trip to guantanamo awaits on the other end.
If it was otherwise then they would have simply questioned him at the embassy as suggested.

In the early days after the leaks, the (very effective) approach was simply to see how many media outlets would repeat a thousand times the words "rape", "sex crime" and "julian assange" in the same sentence. Standard propaganda technique of association by repetition.

Name raked through mud successfully. Now it's time for his punishment beating as a lesson to others...
Even if they don't get him, they have wasted a lot his life and destroyed it and he is not getting a whole lot done. Effectively neutralised for all intensive purposes.

by pat c Fri Aug 17, 2012 20:09

This is unprecedented. A threat to storm an Embassy! And all for someone who hasn't been charged with anything but is wanted for questioning.

'Not even in Cold War’s darkest days': International law scrapped in anti-Assange crusade
http://rt.com/news/assange-asylum-cold-war-883/
Published: 16 August, 2012, 23:46

A sign showing a portrait of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is held by a supporter outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on August 16, 2012 (AFP Photo / Will Oliver)

(37.3Mb)embed video

TAGS: Scandal, South America, UK, Human rights, Law, USA, WikiLeaks, Assange
Ecuador’s move to grant Julian Assange political asylum has shown the true face of the current world order, highlighting more clearly than ever the line between the American Empire and the rest of the world, former CIA officer Ray McGovern told RT.

RT: One of the main reasons Ecuador cited for granting asylum was not the Swedish case against Assange, but the danger of him being persecuted and possibly even executed in the US. What reaction from Washington do you expect?

Ray McGovern: Well, this is a classic case of what has changed over the last 20 years. And that is simply that the shape of the world is now empire vs. the rest of you. What I say here now is that Caesar has spoken. Caesar is the law. Caesar is the United States and the satraps overseas – the UK in the first instance, and now Sweden in the other, do the bidding of the empire. The country that has refused to do the bidding of the empire, Ecuador, is playing a very interesting role here. Their foreign minister said this morning that "we are not a British colony, and the days of colonialism are over.

So what we see here is a playing out of the fact that there is a complete disrespect for international law. The embassy premises of all countries have heretofore been considered sacrosanct. The British Foreign Office is now saying ‘well, we may forcibly enter.’ This was unheard of even during the worst days of the Cold War. If someone sought refuge in the US Embassy in Moscow or the Soviet Embassy in the United States, despite the friction, despite the enmity between those two countries, international law was always honored. This is unprecedented.

RT: According to Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patina, the UK’s acts of aggression, blackmailing, and threats are in direct violation of the 1976 Council of Diplomatic Relations. Do you think that as London and Washington are in cahoots, Ecuador is considered to be meaningless, as it has a small military, and is not a significant economic power?

RM: Well, that has been the attitude. Smaller countries do not really amount to much in Washington or London’s view these days. What will be interesting is to see how much will come out in terms of the real game being played here. Nobody seems to remember that the prime accuser of Julian Assange – Anna Ardin in Sweden – used to work for extreme anti-Castro publications funded by the CIA. So there are links there, and it doesn’t require a conspiratorial attitude to see that the only way they can get at Julian Assange is by trumped-up charges of sexual indiscretions in a country that is hypersensitive to that, and they haven’t even persuaded a judge in Sweden to make those charges.

They have had ample opportunity to go to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and question Julian Assange. They said, ‘we’re not going to do that.' Now, why is that? The reason is, there is no case against Julian Assange. In my opinion, it’s all very transparent. They want to extradite him to Sweden, and then to the United States to suffer the same indignities, the same torture of Bradley Manning – the person who allegedly gave those documents to Julian Assange – has faced. This is a violation of the First Amendment in our country and other amendments in our Bill of Rights, and I dare say that our founding fathers are rolling in their graves to see a [publisher] treated this way in violation of the right to make things known that are otherwise hidden.

by pat c Fri Aug 17, 2012 20:16

I think Ardin may be more of a dupe than an asset but the net result is the same.

Australian TV program exposes Assange frame-up
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jul2012/assa-j28.shtml
By Mike Head
28 July 2012

“Four Corners”, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs program, this week broadcast what amounted to an exposé of the frame-up of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange on allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. Assange remains inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, seeking political asylum from the threat of being removed to Sweden, which would in turn facilitate extradition to the US.

The program provided a valuable service by simply piecing together what happened in the three crucial weeks after Assange arrived in Sweden in mid-August 2010. Assange was there to address a conference and investigate the possibility of hosting WikiLeaks’ operations in a secure computer facility.

By tracing the chronology, the program also clarified the connection between the Swedish witchhunt and the Grand Jury operation underway in the United States to charge Assange with espionage for WikiLeaks’ exposures of US war crimes (see: “Sex, Lies and Julian Assange”).

The program provided substantial evidence that the allegations against him were false and politically motivated. The unproven accusations were used to blacken his name in Sweden and around the world, and counter the widespread public support that he and WikiLeaks had won for courageously exposing the crimes and machinations of the US and other powers.

Reported by Andrew Fowler, the program recounts that when Assange arrived in Sweden on August 11, he was offered accommodation at the apartment of Anna Ardin. She was meant to be away, but returned on the evening of August 13. That night she had consensual sex with Assange, who continued to stay in the apartment until August 18—five days after the occasion on which the Swedish authorities later alleged Assange had used force against her.

In fact, Ardin several times insisted that Assange stay, rejecting offers from others to have the WikiLeaks’ chief stay with them. On the two nights following the supposed assault, Ardin arranged a crayfish barbecue for Assange and attended a dinner party by his side. During the crayfish party, she had tweeted: “Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest, smartest people! It’s amazing!” Later she told a friend she had a “wild weekend” with him.

On August 16, with Ardin’s knowledge, Assange travelled out of town to spend a night with a second young woman, Sofia Wilen. The following day, the two women began exchanging emails. Ultimately, four days later, on August 20, Ardin and Wilen went to a Stockholm police station to see if they could compel Assange to take a sexual health test.

Instead, the police declared that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. Wilen became so distraught at this that she refused to give any more testimony or sign what had been taken down. ...

Transcript and vids at link.

Sex, Lies and Julian Assange
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/35492...0.htm

by pat c Fri Aug 17, 2012 20:46

Ecuador has said it may appeal to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if the UK refuses to grant Julian Assange safe passage out of the country.

Eciadorian presidential staff adviser Alexis Mera said his government would pursue every legal means to bring Assange to Ecuador.

"We are open to discuss with Britain the solution to this problem, and if there is no diplomatic solution, we may resort to the International Court of Justice," Ecuadorian daily EL Commercio quoted Mera as saying.

"It would be terrible and an attack on all international rights" if British police were to enter the Ecuadorian embassy, he said.
On Friday Mera attended a cabinent meeting with President Rafael Correa and other ministers in the Southern city of Liba.
The WikiLeaks founder Assange took shelter in Ecuador’s UK Embassy two months ago, with Quito granting him political asylum after careful deliberation on Thursday.

Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said that Julian Assange’s rights are endangered as he was at high risk of being extradited to the United States upon being handed over to Sweden by UK authorities.

Patino further stated that Assange’s home country Australia was not providing him with sufficient legal protections, thus facilitating Ecuador’s decision to grant him asylum.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said that Britain did not recognize Assange’s asylum status and would continue with its efforts to extradite him to Sweden, where he is currently wanted for questioning on suspicion of sexual assault.
Hague reiterated that the UK “will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the UK."

On Thursday, the head of Assange’s legal team Baltasar Garzon said that any attempt by the UK to block Assange’s safe passage to Ecuador would be subject to an ICC appeal.

"What the United Kingdom must do is apply the diplomatic obligations of the Refugee Convention and let him leave, giving him safe conduct," the former judge told Spanish newspaper El Pais.

"They have to comply with diplomatic and legal obligations under the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and respect the sovereignty of a country that has granted asylum," he told the daily.

The refugee convention defines who is a refugee, the rights of those granted asylum, and the responsibilities of nations which grant asylum. The convention further grants special travel arrangements for individuals who have been given asylum.

In the run up to the decision to grant Assange asylum, the British government reportedly warned Ecuador it could revoke diplomatic immunity for its embassy in London, empowering police to enter the building and arrest Assange.

Patino responded that such an unprecedented action would be a “flagrant violation” of international law.

by Contrarian Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:32

One thing I don't get about the whole Assange business. Assange says he doesn't want to be extradited from the UK to Sweden because he's afraid that Sweden will subsequently extradite him to the US. Fair enough, I can understand why he mightn't like that. And he says (with at least some basis for the belief) the rape allegations are part of that process. Ok, that much I get and the rape thing does indeed look a bit iffy. BUT, the UK is surely a far closer ally of the US than Sweden is. (I think both those who support and those who are agianst the alliance would agree on that!)

So, if Assange was in Sweden and was resisting extradition to the UK because he subsequently feared they might extradite him to the US, yes, I could understand that. But the other way round? Doesn't make sense to me.

I mean, if you were afraid of being extradited to the US, I think you would be far more likely to have that happen to you from the UK than from Sweden, would you not?

While I do not share Assange's worldview, I do think he should be free to pursue his unearthing of information that governments would prefer stay hidden. It's not what he has to say - it's his right to say it.

But I just can't figure out the Sweden vs UK thing. Any ideas, perhaps from folks more in tune with Assange and the way he might see things?

by RM Sun Aug 19, 2012 13:51

Below see the case of Alexander Barankov. It is important to also oppose his extradition to country where he faces possible execution.

Like WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Alexander Barankov has worked to expose government misconduct via the Internet. Both men have received refuge on Ecuadorian territory. But while the South American country made world headlines granting Assange diplomatic asylum on Thursday morning, Barankov faces imminent extradition from Ecuador to its new ally Belarus, described by most observers as “Europe’s last dictatorship” ...

The plight of Barankov poses a real test of Ecuador’s commitment to human rights. A former Belarusian army captain, Barankov arrived in Quito in 2008 thanks to the Ecuadorian government’s very liberal immigration laws. He then set up a blog denouncing corruption and other crimes allegedly committed under authoritarian ruler Alexander Lukashenko. Ecuador initially granted him refugee status, but after a state visit by Lukashenko to Quito on June 29, he was arrested and is being held in the capital’s infamous, 19th century prison while the top court hears the case on Belarus’ fresh extradition request. If sent there, according to his partner, Maribel Andrade, he will face charges of treason and could be put to death.

Ask President Correa to grant asylum to Alexander Barankov. Use the link below.

http://www.presidencia.gob.ec/index.php?option=com_cont...d=115

by ass_anger Sun Aug 19, 2012 15:15

"But I just can't figure out the Sweden vs UK thing. Any ideas, perhaps from folks more in tune with Assange and the way he might see things?"

US want to do it under an ugly smearing "sex criminal" related pretext rather than being blatant about just wanting revenge for leaking their embarassing cables. It just serves their propaganda purposes much better as his name is smeared and dirtied with the term "rape", "sex crime", etc every time it is mentioned on the news thus discrediting him constantly.

Also, they really don't have a good case for extradition directly to the US at all. Assange is not a US citizen and was just the publisher, not the actual leaker. If they extradite him, they also have to imprison the new york times, der spiegel, the guardian etc. They all published the stuff too.

Better to smear his name while getting him to a non english speaking vassal state, and just quietly engage in a bit of rendition from there.

by pat c Tue Aug 21, 2012 13:21

Fuull text at link.

On Friday, I visited Ecuador's embassy here in the capital of the former British empire and saw a building surrounded by a phalanx of cops, with several of them at the front door. The embassy is in an upscale neighborhood near Harrods department store. The intimidating police presence was ordered by a Conservative government that waxes eloquent about the need to respect (British) embassies overseas.

The intensified police deployment is only part of Britain's response to Ecuador's decision -- after a long review -- to grant political asylum on human rights grounds to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who took refuge in the embassy two months ago. The British government has made it clear that it will not allow Ecuador to provide safe passage and asylum to an individual who -- for the "crime" of publishing -- has heard powerful U.S. voices in politics and media call for his murder.

At the door of the rather small embassy, I was met by cops who interrogated me about who I was and why I sought entry. I had to wonder if the embassy was under siege by Britain on behalf of Washington, which reportedly stands ready to prosecute the WikiLeaks founder. Again, that's for the "crime" of publishing -- not sexual assault.