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

[Carsten Wiethoff]

It is also instructive to read the judgement around the question, whether the European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden was valid and legal, or not.
The judge finds, it is (just barely), but there are prominent Swedish judges who disagree.
What I find most interesting is that there was an offer from Assanges defense to have a hearing in October 2010, but it was denied because it was too far away from the initial date 27th of September, but after that it was deemed necessary to write the Arrest Warrant. It is in no way logical.
[URL="http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf"]http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf
[/URL]

Reason for editing: Confusion about the dates. The mentioned events happened in 2010, not in 2011 (as falsely claimed in Der Spiegel, www.spiegel.de, Assange timeline)

[Magda Hassan]

And when the next Mafia criminal goes into the British embassy in Moscow for any business what will Russia do and what will the UK say about what they do?

Birgitta Jonsdottir made a good point too that the UK threats are far more damaging than all of cable-gate to diplomacy.

Russia issues warning to Britain over Assange
AFP - Russia on Friday warned Britain against violating fundamental diplomatic principles after London suggested it could arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange inside Ecuador's embassy.
"What is happening gives grounds to contemplate the observance of the spirit and the letter of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and in particular the Article 22 spelling out the inviolability of diplomatic premises," the Russian foreign ministry said.
Ecuador on Thursday granted asylum to Assange -- whose website enraged the United States by publishing a vast cache of confidential government files -- but Britain has vowed not to grant him safe passage out of the country.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague has said his government was obliged under its own law to extradite the Australian national to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over alleged sex crimes.
Britain has angered Ecuador by suggesting it could invoke a domestic law allowing it to breach the usual rules and go in to arrest Assange, who has been holed up in Ecuador's London mission since June.
This would challenge a fundamental principle of the diplomatic system, and the threat has left Britain in unchartered legal waters.
At the same time, Moscow warned Britain against interpreting the law selectively, stressing that London has given refuge to "dozens of people suspected of committing grave crimes" who are wanted in other countries.
"What to do with a right to refuge for Julian Assange when London turns the observance of this right for this category of people into an absolute principle?" the Russian foreign ministry asked, referring to a number of high-profile figures granted asylum in Britain.


Russia has for years sought the extradition of top Kremlin critic Boris Berezovsky as well as several other figures. http://www.france24.com/en/20120817-russ...er_assange

[Peter Lemkin]

While the United States did not sign or ratify the 1954 convention on diplomatic asylum, it has often used the safety of its embassies to protect activists in authoritarian countries. "The United States is not a party to the 1954 OAS Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and does not recognise the concept of diplomatic asylum as a matter of international law," the State Department said in a statement.

[Magda Hassan]

While the United States did not sign or ratify the 1954 convention on diplomatic asylum, it has often used the safety of its embassies to protect activists in authoritarian countries. "The United States is not a party to the 1954 OAS Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and does not recognise the concept of diplomatic asylum as a matter of international law," the State Department said in a statement.

They had some priest living in their embassy in Hungary for years.

[Jan Klimkowski]

While the United States did not sign or ratify the 1954 convention on diplomatic asylum, it has often used the safety of its embassies to protect activists in authoritarian countries. "The United States is not a party to the 1954 OAS Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and does not recognise the concept of diplomatic asylum as a matter of international law," the State Department said in a statement.

Yeah, well, just like the International Criminal Court, which Amerika refuses to recognise.

To adapt Leona Hemsley, the US attitude is that "treaties are for little people"....

[Jan Klimkowski]

Wait until Putin's secret police enter the British Embassy in Moscow to arrest a UK diplomat wanted for questioning and then see how MSM cries "Foul Calumny!" and "The End of Civilized Diplomacy".

Oh, you bet! That's exactly right. What the UK is doing is throwing away centuries of diplomatic convention which has worked well for everyone until now. Now I can't wait to see if they like it when it is used against them like in your above scenario.

And let's compare the alleged crimes of Assange with the crimes of the fascist butcher General Pinochet, friend of Thatcher and the Bush family, facilitator of Colonia Dignidad and Condor.

Arrest in London

In 1998, Pinochet, who still had much influence in Chile, travelled to the United Kingdom for medical treatment allegations have been made that he was also there to negotiate arms contracts.[4] While there, he was arrested on 17 October 1998 under an international arrest warrant issued by judge Baltasar Garzón of Spain,[5] and was placed under house arrest: initially in the clinic where he had just undergone back surgery, and later in a rented house. The charges included 94 counts of torture of Spanish citizens, the 1975 assassination of Spanish diplomat Carmelo Soria, and one count of conspiracy to commit torture allegations of abuses had been made numerous times before his arrest, including since the beginning of his rule, but never acted upon.

[snip]

There was a hard-fought 16-month legal battle in the House of Lords, the then highest court of the United Kingdom.[6] Pinochet claimed immunity from prosecution as a former head of state under the State Immunity Act 1978. This was rejected, as the Lords decreed that some international crimes, such as torture, could not be protected by former head-of-state immunity.[7] The Lords, however, decided in March 1999 that Pinochet could only be prosecuted for crimes committed after 1988, the date during which the United Kingdom implemented legislation for the United Nations Convention Against Torture in the Criminal Justice Act 1988.[7][8] This invalidated most, but not all, of the charges against him; but the outcome was that extradition could proceed. In April 1999, former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former US President George H. W. Bush called upon the British government to release Pinochet.[9][10] They urged that Pinochet be allowed to return to his homeland rather than be forced to go to Spain. On the other hand, United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, Mary Robinson, hailed the Lords' ruling, declaring that it was a clear endorsement that torture is an international crime subject to universal jurisdiction.[8] Furthermore, Amnesty International and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture demanded his extradition to Spain.[11] Finally, in protest against Spain's action, Chile withdrew for a time its ambassador from Madrid.[12]

There were then questions about Pinochet's allegedly fragile health. After medical tests, the Home Secretary Jack Straw ruled in January 2000 that he should not be extradited. This triggered protests from human rights NGOs, and led in January 2000 the Belgian government, along with six human rights groups (including Amnesty International), to depose a complaint against Straw's decision before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).[13] Belgium, as well as France and Switzerland, had deposed extradition requests in the wake of Spain's demand.[13] Despite the protests of legal and medical experts from several countries, Straw finally ruled, in March 2000, to set free Pinochet and authorize his free return to Chile.[14] Henceforth, on 3 March 2000, Pinochet returned to Chile.

[Magda Hassan]

As Birgitta Jonsdottir says UK threats are doing more damage to diplomacy than the entire cablegate leaks ever did.

[Magda Hassan]

Yes, we've been talking here today with others about Pinochet and the UK and asylum etc. Yes, the Labor party with Tony Blair showed their true colours with this one. They seemed mortified that their honoured guest and arms buyer was treated in such a egalitarian manner as to answer for his crimes against humanity like some common criminal. While he languished in luxurious surroundings in his house arrest during proceedings the mandarins and corporate interests wondered who on earth are they going to sell their weapons to if they can't use them? And the establishment gave Pinochet a get out of jail free card and a face saving excuse for the government not to deal with it at all.

[Magda Hassan]

[URL="http://www.dfat.gov.au/foi/disclosure-log.html"]http://www.dfat.gov.au/foi/disclosure-log.html
FOI reference numberDate of access[SUP]1[/SUP]FOI request[SUP]2[/SUP]Information published in the disclosure log[SUP]3[/SUP]Other information12/825616 August 20121. Ministerial briefings provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Hon Bob Carr, that relate to WikiLeaks, Julian Paul Assange and/or Bradley E Manning.
2. All cable traffic from the Australian Embassy to the United States of America, Washington DC, to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra, sent between 1 February 2012 and 30 April 2012 inclusive, that relates to Wikileaks, Julian Paul Assange and/or Bradley E Manning.
Ministerial briefings provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Hon Bob Carr, that relate to WikiLeaks, Julian Paul Assange and/or Bradley E Manning, and All cable traffic from the Australian Embassy to the United States of America, Washington DC, to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra, sent between 1 February 2012 and 30 April 2012 inclusive, that relates to Wikileaks, Julian Paul Assange and/or Bradley E Manning [PDF 2.24 MB][/URL]

[Lauren Johnson]

While the United States did not sign or ratify the 1954 convention on diplomatic asylum, it has often used the safety of its embassies to protect activists in authoritarian countries. "The United States is not a party to the 1954 OAS Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and does not recognise the concept of diplomatic asylum as a matter of international law," the State Department said in a statement.

They had some priest living in their embassy in Hungary for years.

Archbishop József Mindszenty

He supported Church freedom. He was an opponent of communism and the Stalinist persecution in his country. As a result, he was tortured and given a life sentence in a 1949 show trial that generated worldwide condemnation, including a United Nations resolution. Freed in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, he was granted political asylum and lived in the U.S. embassy in Budapest for 15 years. He was finally allowed to leave the country in 1971. He died in exile in 1975 in Vienna, Austria.