Wikileaks founder Julian Assange enters Ecuador's London embassy, asks for asylum, 2012

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange enters Ecuadorian Embassy and seeks political asylum (Daily Mail)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London seeking political asylum, according to sources.

He walked into the embassy, in London's Knightsbridge district, and asked for asylum under the United Nations Human Rights Declaration.

A statement issued on behalf of the embassy said: 'This afternoon Mr Julian Assange arrived at the Ecuadorian Embassy seeking political asylum from the Ecuadorian government.'
---
The dramatic move followed a long-running legal bid by Mr Assange, 40 - who has been on bail and living with friends - to halt his extradition to Sweden, where he faces sex crime allegations.
---

Click to expand...

much more at link above

If they grant him asylum then what? Can the UK stop him from going?

Thelma said:

If they grant him asylum then what? Can the UK stop him from going?

Click to expand...

Very good question. I haven't seen it answered yet. I did find this:

---
Assange's presence will focus attention on the extent of diplomatic immunity for foreign embassies in the UK.
---
The Ministry of Justice said that responsibility for handling his extradition rested with the Serious Organised crime Agency (SOCA) which deals with European Arrest Warrant requests. SOCA did not immediately reply to calls.
---

Click to expand...

Legal crisis over Julian Assange's asylum request (Guardian)

Another interesting Guardian article about UK and Ecuadorian relations:

Julian Assange's haven of choice

Looks like he breached his bail conditions.

Link

I wonder if they can just "consider" his request for a very long time.

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492

Oh, what a kerfuffle in such a huge way.

And in the details, seemingly lost, are two women who may have been raped. What happens to their rights? Where is *their* justice?

It appears that it's lurking in the Ecuadoran embassy...and now, lots of political manouvering and posturing will have to happen before they can even begin to see justice...if ever.

Sigh.

Best-
Herding Cats

However, the UK has said they will not grant him safe passage which means he cannot leave the embassy, and they may invoke a law which means they can remove the diplomatic immunity of the embassy and walk in and remove him.

Julian Assange granted asylum by Ecuador - live coverage (Guardian)

Extradition expert Anand Doobay has just put paid to Tariq Ali's idea that Assange become a member of embassy staff in order to avoid arrest: to be a diplomat in the UK, you must be accredited by the government.

Doobay said another suggestion that he be smuggled out in a "diplomatic bag" – usually used to carry post and papers – was far fetched. "Ecuador would have to breach the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations," he said.

Click to expand...

From the Guardian live link above

Herding Cats said:

Oh, what a kerfuffle in such a huge way.

And in the details, seemingly lost, are two women who may have been raped. What happens to their rights? Where is *their* justice?

It appears that it's lurking in the Ecuadoran embassy...and now, lots of political manouvering and posturing will have to happen before they can even begin to see justice...if ever.

Sigh.

Best-
Herding Cats

Click to expand...

Same goes for mr Assange who is now not able to prove his innocence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

sherlockh said:

Same goes for mr Assange who is now not able to prove his innocence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Click to expand...

Agreed...

Best-
Herding Cats

Assange is held to be innocent until the court is proven guilty. But the reason he is not being able to prove this, as it were, is because he will not go. Ecuador did not kidnap him. he is accused of something that in England would be considered rape (people have claimed it is just about condom use, but this is not true) i.e he is accused of having sex with a non-consenting woman. And his own lawyer admitted, eventually, that Assange did leave Sweden when he was told the police would be bringing him in. His lawyer had denied that he had been made aware of this, but his mobile proved that the prosecutor had informed him. His lawyer actually got officially reprimanded by the Swedish bar for trying to mislead the court. he may be innocent, but he is wanted for prosecution and so should, like anyone else, have to face this prosecution. Now he will also face charges for breaking his bail conditions.

Don't know about the Swedish charges but, were it not that, it would be something else: those who speak truth to power are frequently if not always persecuted.

The swedish allegations are for rape (and before the myth that in sweden rape is consensual sex without a condom, he is accused of having sex with a person who did not consent and was unable to consent). Why should he be granted immunity which is what his supporters want as they are saying that he should never have to face allegations? Should transparency not apply to everyone, or are those who demand transparency to be made exempt? As far as I am aware he has not told the truth, but provided a platform where others can in much the same way they could upload it to youtube, facebook, myspace, openleaks etc.
I do not think Assange did himself any good by telling fibs about the help offered by australia (he claimed they had abandoned him, but an FOI request has shown in actual fact he refused their help several times), or was helped by his lawyers telling fibs about the case (trying to claim he did not flee when he was told he was going to be charged, and misleading the public as to the charges), or being fine in sweden until he was about to be charged and then suddenly annoucing if he was in sweden he could be sent to the us, or saying it was wrong to leak the charges about the case and an invasion of his privacy (seriously how could he keep a straight face) nor has it helped him that ecuador has announced they gave him asylum because the crimes he is accused of [non-consensual sex) are not a crime in latin america.

Obviously he is innocent until proven guilty in a swedish court, but if we are to have a society where those with a bit of power are not allowed to committ rape or other crimes without facing the consequences we must first have a society where those accused of crimes must face these accusations.

This has me pulled in completely opposite directions.

I am a big supporter and follower of Assange and Wikileaks. I truly believe in their mission and purpose.

At the same time, as a feminist, and as someone who believes that we live in a world culture that trivializes rape and sexual assault, I think the allegations are extremely troublesome, to say the least.

And then on the other hand, Assange, because of his work, is a lightning rod for false charges of any kind. I try to avoid buying into conspiracy theories, but there are niggling doubts about the accusations, and how the case has been handled.

On the other hand, we are talking about Sweden here, not exactly a stereotypical hotbed of government persecution and corruption, and not likely to be a place where a political activist would disappear into a gulag or whatnot.

I do think that somehow the charges need to be faced, by Assange. Otherwise what message do we send to other victims of sexual assault? But there should also be perhaps some sort of outside watchdog to be sure things are conducted fairly.

The good news is that should Assange ever be legitimately sentenced for the alleged crimes,or even disappeared in a more sinister way, Wikileaks will still exist,and supporters and collaborators will be sure that it's work will continue.

Am I the only one that Doesn't see it as a bad thing leaking all these documents? Personally I do not trust our government (uk).

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

I suppose Britain could end diplomatic relations with Ecuador and then "legally" go in and get him but that could be construed as an act of war (Ecuador could then "legally" arrest and imprison British diplomats there it would seem). They didn't even do that in the time of declared war with German diplomats, I don't believe.

Britain wouldn't turn him over to us if he was charged with murder and was eligible for the death penalty so they like to get up on their high horse no matter whether it's pointed north or south.

i am fine with leaked documents so long as they do not put people in danger or violate their rights.

but wikileaks and assange are not one in the same. It is no different than supporting a politcal party but not agreeing that the leader should never have to face accusations made against them. Even bill clinton was questioned when he was us president.

Sweden is under the echr so that should act as a watchdog

Britain just hates Ecuador because their climate is perfect.:doorhide:

Isn't he about to speak now? From the balcony I assume? Do I still have time to get me some popcorn?