Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is expected to appear in a UK court tomorrow!

[Magda Hassan]

Wikileaks fightback: meet the A' Team… see document requesting espionage prosecution

POSTED BY DARKERNET â‹… AUGUST 4, 2012 â‹… [URL="https://darkernet.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/wikleaks-fightback-meet-the-a-team-see-document-requesting-espionage-prosecution/#comments"]1 COMMENT

[/URL]

We now know that the official request by US Senator Diane Feinstein to prosecute Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, for espionage was made as far back as December 2010. To see the original document, click here (Gillard and Co. would have been informed of this at the time). Here is a quote from it: "We believe that Mr. Assange's conduct is espionage and that his actions fall under the elements of this section of law. Therefore, we urge that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act".Meanwhile, the chess pieces are falling into place: the Swedish Government continues to insist that Assange can only answer questions about the sex allegations in Sweden, from where he will be onward-extradited to the USA; the British Government can insist, but won't, that as a condition of Assange's extradition to Sweden there be no onward extradition; the Australian Government insists it is doing all it can to assist Assange, who has received death threats, but in reality is doing bugger all. (See video interview with Jennifer Robinson, above, who raises these issues much more eloquently.) Ultimately, everything points to America, which intends to make an example of Assange (and Bradley Manning) so that no one dare leak or publish leaked information again.The US Government, however, is delusional if they believe they can stop dissent or prevent those who reveal truth from continuing to do so. If Assange is extradited to America, charged and then convicted, no matter how draconian the punishments, the human tendency to fight against authoritarian systems will prevail. But rather than adopt a largely defensive posture we Wikileaks supporters, or otherwise; Assange supporters, or not; liberationists in general must go on the attack via every means at our disposal, including expanding the Wikileaks operations and creating many similar initiatives.There are also a number of legal moves that can be made, beyond the purely defensive (as outlined here and here) and should civil writs be served (in more than one country) then Christine Assange, the mother of Julian, may prove to be pivotal. The expanded Wikileaks legal team, under the direction of Sr. Garzon, could not be better placed if prosecution went ahead, so perhaps it's time we got to know the people in this team a bit better.Here, then, is a brief introduction to the members of what could be called the Wikileaks A Team'. Each is renowned for his/her stand against injustice and their fight for human rights. Collectively, their integrity is unquestionable.Note: to see a recent article by Michael Ratner (see profile below) on the US war against Wikileaks, click here.Julian Burnside (Australia)Julian Burnside represented the Maritime Union of Australia in the 1998 waterfront dispute and won the case. He represented Victoria's chief civil liberties organisation against the Australian Government over the Tampa affair. He was a staunch critic of the Howard Government's policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers. He has organised free accommodation and legal representation for refugees in Australia. He won a major case re. the Stolen Generation' involving Aboriginal children forcibly taken from their parents by Government. In 2004 he was awarded the Human Rights Law Award and in 2007 he received the Australian Peace Prize from the Peace Organisation of Australia. His involvement with the Assange case is largely in relation to Australian Government matters.See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Burnside
http://www.listgbarristers.com.au/barris...ail/?id=35Baltasar Garzon (International)On 17 October 2008, Sr. Baltasar Garzón formally declared the acts of repression committed by the Franco regime to be crimes against humanity, and accounted them in more than one hundred thousand killings during and after the Spanish Civil War. Garzón came to international attention on 10 October 1998 when he issued an international warrant for the arrest of former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet for the alleged deaths and torture of Spanish citizens. The Chilean Truth Commission (199091) report was the basis for the warrant, marking an unprecedented use of universal jurisdiction to attempt to try a former dictator for an international crime. Eventually it was turned down by British Home Secretary, Jack Straw, who rejected (on spurious health grounds) Garzón's request to have Pinochet extradited to Spain. Garzón also filed charges of genocide against Argentine military officers on the disappearance of Spanish citizens during Argentina's 19761983 dictatorship. Eventually, Adolfo Scilingo and Miguel Angel Cavallo were prosecuted in separate cases (Scilingo was convicted and sentenced to over 1000 years incarceration for his crimes). Garzón issued indictments for five Guantanamo detainees, including Spaniard Abderrahman Ahmad and United Kingdom resident Jamil El Banna. Ahmad was extradited to Spain on 14 February 2004. El Banna was repatriated to the United Kingdom, and in 2007, Garzón then dropped the charges against him. Garzon was recently appointed to the Assange/Wikileaks legal team.See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Garz%C3%B3n
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/17/spain
http://castancentre.com/2012/07/27/so-wh...ar-garzon/
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2012/5/31/wikileaks_war_crimes_and_the_pinochet_principle
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...estigation
http://www.france24.com/en/20120227-garz...-civil-warThomas Olsson (Sweden)Thomas Olsson has been engaged in a battle to quash eight murder convictions of Thomas Quick, who is a mental patient who was addicted to confessing crimes he had not committed. Quick has since been cleared of half of the murders (the remaining sentences are currently under appeal). Quick's defence counsel during the murder trials was Claes Borgström, who is now disgraced because of his handling of the case. (Note: Borgstrom, who represents the two complainants, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen, against Julian Assange, has recently been reported to the Swedish Bar for misconduct.)See http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Press-Contact-ListGareth Peirce (Britain)My job is to get you out and I'm going to get you out': Gareth Pierce on first meeting with Gerry Conlon, one of the Guildford Four in Long Lartin prison (she did get him out and the others). Ms. Pierce was instrumental in ensuring the quashing of convictions of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. She was a legal representative in the infamous Persons Unknown trial, when six people, anarchists, were accused of conspiracy to bomb (she and her legal colleagues convinced the jury that the charges were a farce and the defendants who pleaded innocence were consequently freed). Peirce has also led high-profile cases involving members of the Muslim community who have been wrongly accused of terrorism and sent to Guantanamo Bay. Ms. Peirce often comes across as a timid, quiet and very private individual, though in truth she is indefatigable, tenacious and never, ever gives in. Even with the less high-profile cases… a well-known, 64 year-old anarchist, Albert Meltzer, was arrested (on a charge later thrown out by the court) and held overnight in a police cell… Gareth was concerned about Meltzer's safety (he was overweight and had health problems) and rang the duty sergeant and told him in no uncertain terms that if anything untoward happened to Mr. Meltzer and he did not survive the night, she would hold him personally responsible… (As it was, Albert was released the next day after the police station had received hundreds of calls from concerned individuals from around the world, including Noam Chomsky, Gunther Grass, Sean MacBride and so on).On Peirce: "Once she has taken up a case, which she comes to believe in, what is impressive about her is her certainty that an injustice has occurred. It's never on the one hand, on the other. And she expresses that certainty in such convincing terms." Ludovic Kennedy.http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/1...man-rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Peirce
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/14...eptember11Michael Ratner (USA)Michael Ratner is President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York and a past president of the National Lawyers Guild. He represented Guantanamo Bay detainees in the United States Supreme Court, which decided that his clients had the right to test the legality of their detention. In 2006, he filed a complaint in Germany against US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other US officials for the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Ratner sued the George W. Bush administration to try to stop the Gulf War, the Clinton administration to try to stop the strategic bombing during the Kosovo War, and won a case on behalf of victims of the Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, for war crimes.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_RatnerJennifer Robinson (Australia and Britain)From 2009, Jennifer Robinson worked for the UK legal firm, Finers Stephens Innocent and was appointed legal adviser to Julian Assange in October 2010. In 2011, she became the Legal Director for the Bertha Foundation in London, with the task of creating and developing a global human rights and public interest law program. Although officially she is no longer part of the Assange defence team she acts on his behalf from time to time, particularly in relation to Australian Government mattersSee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Robinson_(lawyer)Per E Samuelson (Sweden)Mr. Samuelson represented Carl Lundström in the trial against the Pirate Bay 2. He also specialises in defending rape cases.See
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_E._Samuelson
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial

[URL="https://darkernet.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/wikleaks-fightback-meet-the-a-team-see-document-requesting-espionage-prosecution/"]https://darkernet.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/wikleaks-fightback-meet-the-a-team-see-document-requesting-espionage-prosecution/
[/URL]

Press Release of Intelligence CommitteeFeinstein-Bond Ask Attorney General to Prosecute WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange for Espionage

Contact: Phil LaVelle (Feinstein) or
Gil Duran (Feinstein) 202-224-9629
Shana Marchio (Bond) 202-224-0309
Friday, December 3, 2010

[B]WASHINGTON, DC U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Christopher (Kit) Bond (R-Mo.), vice chairman of the committee, asked Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage. Following is their letter to the attorney general:[/B]

December 2, 2010

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20535

Dear Attorney General Holder:

We respectfully urge the Department of Justice (DOJ) to take action to bring criminal charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and any and all of his possible accomplices involved in the unauthorized possession and distribution of vast quantities of classified and unclassified material from the U.S. government. The unauthorized release of this information, including the recent release of approximately 250,000 State Department documents, is a serious breach of national security and could be used to severely harm the United States and its worldwide interests.

On Saturday, before the latest disclosures by WikiLeaks, the State Department's legal adviser, Harold Koh, wrote Mr. Assange telling him that if he were "genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage" from his actions he should: (1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; (2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and (3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks' databases. As we know, Mr. Assange failed to take these actions, and instead proceeded to release these documents to the world at large.

We appreciate your statement earlier this week that DOJ has an "active, ongoing, criminal investigation" with regard to the WikiLeaks matter. We also understand that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning who may have been involved in disclosing the most recent set of documents provided to WikiLeaks has already been charged in military court with eight violations of federal criminal law, including unauthorized computer access and transmitting classified information to an unauthorized third party in violation of a section of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793(e).

Section 793(e) of the Espionage Act states:

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it … Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Courts have interpreted "information relating to the national defense" to include classified and unclassified material. We believe that Mr. Assange's conduct is espionage and that his actions fall under the elements of this section of law. Therefore, we urge that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

If Mr. Assange and his possible accomplices cannot be charged under the Espionage Act (or any other applicable statute), please know that we stand ready and willing to support your efforts to "close those gaps" in the law, as you also mentioned this week. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein Christopher S. Bond
Chairman Vice Chairman

###

http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/rec...?id=328832[/URL]

[Peter Lemkin]

Great summary of the legal teams and efforts. The 'Decision' is expected as early as today or tomorrow...the trick is going to be a way to negotiate Assange out of the UK, as the UK will not play fair and try to take him by force - any force necessary - if he tries to leave the country - even after being granted asylum. I wonder if there are size limits on diplomatic pouches?!

[Magda Hassan]

Clearly, this is not about broken condoms....never in the history of diplomacy have they ever lifted a finger for a woman who was done bad. I doubt they will start now. There are police all around the embassy I was shown photos. Which I will try to post. There is a call out to any in London to go to the embassy to support the embassy and Assange.

Julian Assange: UK issues 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623#story_continues_1"]
The UK has issued a "threat" to enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London to arrest Julian Assange, Ecuador's foreign minister has said.Continue reading the main story[/URL]Related Stories

• Ecuador to make Assange decision
  
• Assange 'declines' police order
  
• Assange dismisses police summons
  

Ricardo Patino also said a decision on the Wikileaks founder's asylum request would be made public on Thursday.
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.
The Foreign Office says the UK has a legal obligation to extradite him.
At a news conference in Quito on Wednesday night, Mr Patino said: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our Embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange.
"Ecuador rejects in the most emphatic terms the explicit threat of the British official communication."
'Hostile act'He said such a threat was "improper of a democratic, civilized and rule abiding country".

"We are not a British colony"."If the measure announced in the British official communication is enacted, it will be interpreted by Ecuador as an unacceptable, unfriendly and hostile act and as an attempt against our sovereignty. It would force us to respond," he said.
A Foreign Office spokesman said the UK remained "determined" to fulfil its obligation to extradite Mr Assange.
"Throughout this process have we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," the spokesman said.
"We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution."
The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is theDiplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.
UK 'frustrated'It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange.
The BBC's deputy political editor James Landale says the British government has been in long negotiations with Ecuador over the issue and has reminded it of the act.
But he added that while the UK has been frustrated at the lack of a decision it is not about to raid the embassy.
Even if Mr Assange is granted asylum, he will have to cross British territory and could be arrested, our correspondent said.
On Monday, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa said a decision would be made this week after he held a meeting with his advisers.
Mr Patino told reporters the decision had been made and an announcement would issued on Thursday morning, at 07:00 Ecuadorian time (13:00 BST).
Final appealMr Assange's Wikileaks website published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments, particularly the US, in 2010.

Mr Assange claims the sex was consensual and the allegations are politically motivated.In 2010, two female ex-Wikileaks volunteers alleged that Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, had attacked them while he was in Stockholm to give a lecture.
The 41-year-old says he fears that if he is extradited to Sweden, he may be sent later to the US and could face espionage charges.
In June, judges at the UK's Supreme Court dismissed his final appeal against extradition to Sweden.
An offer to the Swedish authorities by Ecuador for investigators to interview Mr Assange inside the embassy, in Knightsbridge, was rejected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

[Magda Hassan]

Short translation: the UK is threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy to enter and seize Assange.

Google Translation of letter set from UK to Ecuadorian Chancellor regarding Julian Assange's asylum.
Original: http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/images/eltel...cuador.pdf


Aide Memoire


We are aware of and surprised by, the reports in the media over the last 24 hours, compared to that Ecuador would reach a decision and intends to grant asylum to Mr. Assange.


The reports quoted official sources.


We note that the President has not yet made a decision.


We are concerned, should be true of. this will undermine our efforts to agree a joint text setting out the positions of both countries, allowing Mr. Assange leave the Embassy.


As we have stated previously, we meet our legal obligations under the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and Extradition Act 2003 (Extradition Act 2003), to arrest and extradite Mr. Assange to Sweden. We remain committed to working with you to resolve this matter amicably. But we must be absolutely clear that this means that if you receive a request for safe passage for Mr. Assange, after granting asylum, it will be rejected, in line with our legal obligations.


From this perspective, and given the statements of the last 24 hours, we hope that you are prepared to continue to carry out the current diplomatic discussions. We continue to believe that a solution is possible based on jointly agreed text, that would play with the departure of Mr. Assange of the Embassy, ​​leading to his extradition.


We have another meeting (video conference) scheduled for Thursday August 16. Given the statements made yesterday in Quito, about an imminent decision, should we assume that this meeting will be the last to agree a joint text?


We reiterate that we consider the continued use of diplomatic facilities in this manner inconsistent with the Vienna Convention and unsustainable, and that we have made clear the serious implications for our diplomatic relations.


They must be aware that there is a basis in the UK - the law on diplomatic and consular facilities in 1987 (Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987) - that would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in current facilities Embassy.


We sincerely hope not to have to get to this point, but if you can not resolve the issue of the presence of Mr. Assange in its facilities, this route is open to us.


You understand the importance of the issues raised by Mr. Assange, and strong public pressure in Ecuador. But anyway we have to solve the situation on the ground here in the UK, in line with our legal obligations. We have strived to develop a joint text, to help meet their needs and concerns of presentation to the public.


We continue to believe that a joint text and a voluntary surrender by Mr. Assange is the best solution.

[Magda Hassan]

Press conference at the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry, live stream now. We have no confirmation of the subject matter. http://www.mmrree.gob.ec/

[Magda Hassan]

Mulitple police vehicle arriving at Ecuador embassy in London NOW! Can this be confirmed? http://via.me/-437oxa2

[Magda Hassan]

More live feed of events at the embassy here: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork

[Peter Lemkin]

Under US pressure or 'solidarity' the UK is going to try something illegal - thst could start a war on UK citizens around the world and certainly point out the double-standards the UK and US and their gang work on. How about the bind Chinese dissident who was in the US Embassy. Would the US have tolerated the Chinese breading in or arresting him upon leaving?

I just heard an international law professor say all the UK had to do was 'relocate' the Ecuadorian Embassy - which would force those inside to move to the new location - giving them the opportunity to arrest any inside they wanted. They could also start a fire or declare the building unfit for human habitation etc.

All is quiet now at the Embassy and I expect it will until after Ecuador announces they have given Assange asylum. That's the easy part. After that, getting him out now seems an impossible task. Ordinarily the host nation will grant 'safe passage'; but you can bet your bippie in this case unless Ecuador had something to trade [I fear they do not] the UK will do no such thing and the enhanced presence of 50+ Police in and out of three police vans around the Embassy [and no doubt others hidden and waiting nearby] shows thug UK's intentions. Any such move, however, would forever end all nation's ability to grant asylum - a tradition that dates back centuries and has saved many lives and served much justice.

I'm with you Magda, and find it a bit upsetting that there are not more people surrounding the Embassy...a public outcry from UK citizens is likely the ONLY way he'll ever make it to Ecuador...or some extraordinary vote in the UN General Assembly

Now ther are two British Police ON the steps of the Embassy - not in front, as they should be. The tension seems to be building. Also the police are not the special Diplomatic Police of the UK, but criminal officers - that handle crime cases. Now there are starting to be a few people there...but few is the operative word. The camerman for Ustream just asked a police officer what his orders were, to which the policeman gave a glib reply of 'keeping the peace'. The streamer just gave a summary in Portuguese, but I can't discern if he is from Portugal or Brazil.

A Diplomatic Police van just arrived and is talking to the two officers on the steps of the Embassy. And thank goodness a small group is starting to form at 4:30am London time...I hope it grows to hundreds or even thousands by day's end and remains! Tahrir around the Ecuadorian Embassy. Not only is Assange imporant in and of himself; but symbolically, this is crucial to if the 'West' becomes a Police State or not. IMHO.

The livestreamers seem to be associated with the Occupy Movement. The Portugese or Brazilian just left to recharge his batteries and now a woman with strong London accent is livestreaming. Of course, the MSM is NOT there at all.

Three persons on the top of the Harrads nearby....not sure if citizens or Police snipers.

[Peter Lemkin]

I stand corrected, the BBC is there, but not live. Anyway, citizen journalism and livestreaming is the only way we'll get someting approximating the truth of the events of today, which I think could be heavy! More and more police walking by and an occasional police van [plus the three parked with 12+ police inside each]. The police went INSIDE the Embassy a half hour ago [just before I started watching]!....which I feel is totally illegal. They came back out without Assange. There are rumors that Assange is not in the Embassy. I can think of one way he could have been exfiltrated, but will not mention yet, in case it is not yet so, but might become so. Ask me later, when this is 'over'...if it ever is. One person had to remain in a US embassy for 19 years, I believe, as the host nation wouldn't grant him safe passage. Now, I'm furious that the Public Order Police of the UK went into a sovereign Embassy...under what law or right - NONE! In fact there are longstanding International Treaties specifically disallowing that!

One good thing - this Ustream feed has had over 57,000 views from around the World!...and one can expect that to grow much larger as the day progresses! The Ustreamer just went up to the door of the Embassy and asked the two 'Bobbies' if there was a doorbell she could ring and ask for a comment. They said nothing. She walked past them, found the bells, but did not ring. It is, after all, before 5am.

Just a very nasty verbal exchange between the livestreamer and a motorcycle policeman! Things are heating [hotting] up.

[Peter Lemkin]

8.46am: Wikileaks has just tweeted that diplomatic police have just arrived at the Ecuadorian embassy. You can watch a live video stream here.

Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said Britain had earlier in the day issued "a written threat that it could assault our embassy" if Assange is not handed over. After Patino's brief appearance before reporters, Britain's Foreign Office issued a statement citing a 1987 British law it says permits the revocation of diplomatic status of a building if the foreign power occupying it "ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post."

Patino said Ecuador "rejects in the most energetic terms the explicit threat of the official British communication."

The Foreign Office statement did not elaborate on Britain's intentions if Assange were to be granted political asylum by Ecuador whose president, Rafael Correa, has expressed sympathy for the Wikileaks founder.

"We have an obligation to extradite Mr. Assange and it is only right that we give Ecuador (the) full picture," the statement said, before adding: "We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution."

Under international law, diplomatic posts are considered the territory of the foreign nation.

8.40am: There have been protests in both Ecuador and the UK, over the UK's "threat" to the Ecuadorian embassy over Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. In Quito, about 30 people yelling "England, what part don't you understand, we are sovereign!" protested outside the British Embassy, and briefly trampled a British flag.

In London, a small group of Assange supporters were gathered outside the Ecuadorean embassy late Wednesday, according to live footage broadcast by a citizen journalist on the scene. The embassy was dark, although occasionally the curtains appeared to move.

British officials have vowed not grant Assange safe passage out of their country if Ecuador grants asylum. They say they will arrest him the moment he steps foot outside the embassy.

But they had not publicly suggested they might strip the embassy of its diplomatic inviolability.

However a British Foreign Office spokesperson says, "Under British law we can give them a week's notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection. But that decision has not yet been taken. We are not going to do this overnight. We want to stress that we want a diplomatically agreeable solution."

8.30am: The Ecuadorean government will announce its decision on Julian Assange's appeal for political asylum at 10 o'clock tonight, Eastern Australian time.
However, contrary to media and Twitter speculation, British police have not raided Ecuador's London embassy to arrest Assange to facilitate his extradition to Sweden.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-...z23ftdG1Sb

8.10am: Wikileaks has just released a press release on the Ecuador and Assange situation, condemning the situation and calling it an attempt to "bully Ecuador into a decision that is agreeable to the United Kingdom and its allies."

The statement added that "a threat of this nature is a hostile and extreme act, which is not proportionate to the circumstances, and an unprecedented assault on the rights of asylum seekers worldwide."

Reiterating that Assange had not been charged with any crime in any country, and called for the immediate resignation of UK Secretary of state William Hague, who is believed to have taken this decision in the absence of Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.