DavidB (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:44 am I have been living in London for the last 2 years, I dont know where you are getting your intel from, but nobody over here has ever actually suggested invading the embassy, that is just pure BS. And nobody over here believes he isnt guilty of the sex charges either.
Pardon... Britain threatened to revoke the embassy's legal status, and then send armed men in to physically take Assange. Same difference.
British Threaten To Invade Ecuador Embassy To Get Assange (http://www.ibtimes.com/british-threaten ... nge-748054)
Britain is threatening to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to arrest Julian Assange, Ecuador's foreign minister said Wednesday.
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.
Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino also said a decision on the Wikileaks founder's asylum request would be made public at 7 a.m. Thursday, the BBC reported.
At the same time, the British Foreign Office said it could revoke the embassy's diplomatic status, and the UK had a "legal obligation" to extradite Assange.
"Under British law we can give them a weeks' notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," a Foreign Office spokesman said in a statement quoted by Reuters. "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."
Meanwhile, a number of police officers are outside the embassy, in Knightsbridge.
At a news conference in Quito Wednesday evening alongside Assange's mother, Patino said a letter was delivered to the Ecuadorian government through a British Embassy official there.
"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," he said. "Ecuador rejects in the most emphatic terms the explicit threat of the British official communication."
Such a threat was "improper of a democratic, civilized and rule abiding country," Patino said.
"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. "We are not a British colony."
The British said they have been trying to negotiate with Ecuador, but may invoke the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987, which allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy on its soil.
Or, if you prefer your news local:
Julian Assange asylum: Ecuador is right to stand up to the US (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... um-ecuador)
Ecuador has now made its decision: to grant political asylum to Julian Assange. This comes in the wake of an incident that should dispel remaining doubts about the motives behind the UK/Swedish attempts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Wednesday, the UK government made an unprecedented threat to invade Ecuador's embassy if Assange is not handed over. Such an assault would be so extreme in violating international law and diplomatic conventions that it is difficult to even find an example of a democratic government even making such a threat, let alone carrying it out.
When Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patiño, in an angry and defiant response, released the written threats to the public, the UK government tried to backtrack and say it wasn't a threat to invade the embassy (which is another country's sovereign territory). But what else can we possibly make of this wording from a letter delivered by a British official?
"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."
Is there anyone in their right mind who believes that the UK government would make such an unprecedented threat if this were just about an ordinary foreign citizen wanted for questioning not criminal charges or a trial by a foreign government?
So no.... nobody's threatened to invade the embassy to take a man who's facing no charges. Unless of course, you count the threat I've just linked to above.