Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (link)



Britain ratified this convention, like 186 other countries also did.

Either you play by the rules, or you play not by the rules. Just to sometimes do, and when it is opportune: sometimes not - that is what renders you unpredictable to the max.

It makes maintaining diplomatic relations pointless.

For Ecuador, violating the embassy in London in principle is a justification to declare a state of war. Whether they would go that far I doubt, but that is how it is.

Go down the road that Steed proposed and it would be a real possibility. Once you take a step on that road, there's no turning back.

I just have to post this link for fun. :O:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXNUaSjXRY

Joss Ackland sounds like Palpatine in that clip :haha:

Palpatine: "And now, witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational Diplomatic Immunity..."

Vader: "It's just been revoked" *throws Palpatine down the pit*

The sad part is that given the state of the British military they would not be able to prosecute a war against Ecuador without the help of us... :O:

We wouldn't even need to attack Ecuador, we'd just 'discover' vast oil reserves in the region and sit back and let you do it for us. :yep::O:

I told you he would never make the airport!:haha:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2..._utmk=31736829

"So are you sure burying this barrel of oil in the ground is enough?"
"Dig faster!"

Hmm i like fun, but frankly i find most reactions here not funny at all, let alone that illegal douchebags, having committed crimes against the law of the nations, come out unscathed and lead this witchhunt.
Remember no one would know e.g. about drone attacks, without Wikileaks.

I wonder if those bigmouths could sleep better, if they didn't know what their government did and does, in their name ?
Better not know about it and kill all who make those crimes public ? Really ? Is that the new international freedom and democracy ?

Most people in the US get angry when anyone doubts constitutional rights like the right to bear arms, but if their own government breaks the constitution continually they do not want to know.

No one will later be able to say "we did not know about it".

It wouldn't work in this case Otto.
The provisions in that Act only cover change of status by the Secretary of State if it is done in compliance with the relevant international law and treaties, which puts it back under the vienna conventions which means it can only do it with Equadors approval.

Britain really screwed up with its threatening letter.
What on earth were they thinking:doh:

It could be a while before anything happens though, to be fair, there's the case of József Mindszenty who spent 15 years in the US embassy in Hungary, so Assange might just decide to sit it out, but to be honest, waiting until the limelight has passed doesn't strike me as Assanges MO, the guy is all about being IN the limelight as much and as long as possible. To be fair, his personal survival may depend on it, it's harder to have an accident when the worlds media is watching you...

Assange is a c*ck

But looking into things Assange and the Ecuadorean president have been cozy for a while.

Anyway it is all hype and bluster. What I love is how the Ecuadorean government has said that the UK has threatened to "storm" the embassy.

Nowhere in any release from HMG have I seen the word "storm". Just reference to the 1987 law. Talk about blow out of proportion.

BTW EU human rights convention doesn't allow extradition of a person to a country where they might face the death penalty. I don't know if that only applies to EU citizens but on balance it would probably apply to anyone in the EU regardless of citizenship.

Great reading the comments on the BBC page...so many numb nuts there.

Heard a few good comments on various tv news channels during the course of the evening:

A former diplomatic ambassador from Britain has stressed he wouldn't like to see our authorities enter the building after having stripped it of its diplomatic status because that would set a precedent for any other country to do likewise to our diplomats abroad in the future.

Another 'expert' states Ecuador simply need to give Assange Ecudorian citizenship, then make him an Information Attache based in their London embassy and with that position he would automatically have diplomatic immunity.

Finally....Assange has supposedly twittered he will step out of the embassy this Sunday afternoon to make a public statement. (The band played 'Believe It If You Like').

Have you seen the International Court of Law move fast on anything ever? They would need weeks or months to put the correct case together. And eve then what practical impact would it have? Britain can still do what it likes within its sovereign territory. Removing diplomatic status of a single embassy would be a matter between those two countries. The issue is that they have court judgements for extradition and neither Britain nor Sweden are threatening to harm Assange, so his claims of being endangered are still baseless other than his bleating about the US being able to get him from Sweden. Bollox to that, the US could get him from Britain if they wanted him that bad.

Ecuador has some options as pointed out in Jim's post above.

My point is that the actual actions taken can occur well before any arguments over the legality of them are concluded. I don't agree with the rightness or wrongness of the laws, just what the practical outcomes are likely to be.

If Assange does poke his head up on Sunday it will be interesting to see whether he actually has diplomatic immunity already. That would then make the whole argument moot and he gets on a plane to Ecuador and bye bye to Sweden, Britain and the US.

Let him go to Ecuador, who cares!! Once there, he won't be a headache for the UK anymore! Hopefully, he'll piss off someone from one of the drug cartels, then his so called immunity will mean nothing, and he'll simply disappear.