You are here

Home » Blogs » Heydrich's blog

British government threatens to storm Ecuador's embassy

published by Heydrich on Thu, 2012-08-16 15:33

Asylum for Julian Assange became official today at 1:00 pm, London time.

Yesterday (15 Aug 2012) the British government sent written notice to Ecuador’s government that if Assange is not surrendered, then England can revoke the diplomatic status of Ecuador’s embassy, so that British police can storm it and grab Mr. Assange.

The embassy has no wall or security fence. It is located in a plain building of private apartments on a narrow street in the Knightsbridge area of central London. You can tour the street at Google maps…

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.499,-0.1614&spn=0.01,0.01&t=h&q=51.499,-0.1614 

Today supporters of Assange gathered outside the embassy and clashed with the scores of police, who arrested three of them.

A British embassy official in Quito delivered the threatening letter directly to Ecuador’s government. Back in London, the Foreign Office initially refused to release the letter to reporters, but relented under pressure. The letter in Spanish reads, in part: 

“We must arrest Mr. Assange and extradite him to Sweden. Should you grant him asylum, and then request safe passage for him, we will refuse it. We consider Assange’s use of diplomatic premises to be incompatible with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and not sustainable. Under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987, we have a legal basis to arrest Mr. Assange inside your embassy. If you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange’s presence on your premises, then this route is open to us.”

 http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/2012/08/16/letter-warns-ecuador-can-arrest-assange/aYl6C66oLwNyzfdtrGU7PI/story.html

(NOTE: If England decides to revoke the embassy’s diplomatic status so that British police can attack it, then under the 1987 law, England must give seven days advance warning to Ecuador. Many people have sought asylum in Western embassies. Some have lived there for many years. The West considers this to be morally and legally justified under "international law" unless a nation is not a Western ally, e.g. Ecuador. On 4 April 2011, Wikileaks published US diplomatic cables proving that Heather Hodges, the US ambassador to Ecuador, had conspired to overthrow president Correa. The following day, Ecuador expelled Ms. Hodges.)  

Yesterday in Quito, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño gave a televised address saying, “We received an express threat in writing that the British government  might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange. The letter was improper of a democratic, civilized and law-abiding country. If the measure is enacted, then Ecuador will regard it as an unacceptable, unfriendly and hostile act against our sovereignty, and Ecuador will be forced to respond. We are not a British colony.”

Mr. Patiño also said Ecuador will call an emergency session of the Organization of American States and the Union of South American Nations to discuss the British threat against its sovereignty.

A spokeswoman for the Foreign office said Britain remained "determined" to extradite Mr. Assange to Sweden.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9478896/Wikileaks-Government-threatens-to-take-Julian-Assange-out-of-Ecuadors-embassy.html
 
On 16 August, WikiLeaks released a statement. “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.”

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/world/americas/ecuador-assange/?hpt=hp_t2

Sweden’s right-wing government condemned Ecuador, calling the asylum "unacceptable,” and summoning Ecuador’s ambassador for interrogation.

http://news.sky.com/story/973139/wikileaks-assange-granted-asylum-by-ecuador 

Tags: 
ECUADOR
WIKILEAKS
UNITED KINGDOM

Comments

Submitted by Tom Sullivan on Thu, 2012-08-16 15:46.

Regardless as to whether or not the UK Government rescind Ecuador's diplomatic status, under international law the Ecuadorian embassy is still Ecuadorian territory and any attempt to storm it by UK forces is tantamount to an act of war.

If the UK takes these steps, I hope the Ecuadorians have the fortitude to rescind the diplomatic status of the UK embassy and arrest their ambassador.

Submitted by Tom Sullivan on Thu, 2012-08-16 20:34.

For what it is worth, I am deeply suspicious of Assange, so my comment relates only to the proposed storming of the embassy by the UK police force.

Submitted by Heydrich on Thu, 2012-08-16 21:36.

There is a great deal of rumor, information, and dis-information connected with Assange. I was undecided about him until I saw the video that wikileaks released on 3 April 2010, showing US helicopter gunships massacring Iraqi civilians in New Baghdad on 12 July 2007. Then the gunships fired on people (including children) who tried to aid the victims.  It's all right there on video. The US government would never have released it if Assange were a "CIA employee," as some people claim.

Here is that video again. Skip to 4:40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

In early 2011, wikileaks released cables about Syria, revealing US plans on great detail -- all of which came to pass. Wikileaks cables also caused Ecuador to expel the US ambassador.

Is it all a ruse by the CIA? I doubt it. What would be the purpose?

It seems there are some cases where Wikileaks decided not to publish information for political reasons, e.g. some items connected with Israel. This leads some people to conclude that Assange is a "Zionist agent." However, we can just as easily surmise that everyone already knows what Israel does. The release of special Israeli cables would change nothing, other than causing all Jews to attack wikileaks.

I hear what you're saying, Tom, but in my opinion, wikileaks is genuine. The USA wants Assange very badly. Several Congress members have called for his execution. The British government is threatening to storm Ecuador's embassy.

That's an awful lot of opprobrium expended on what some people claim is a mass trick.

Let me ask why you are so suspicious of Assange. I would like to see something that caused you to become skeptical. I greatly value anything you might say.

Submitted by Heydrich on Thu, 2012-08-16 21:40.

By the way, how much do I value your opinion? So much so that when I write a comment to you, I check the time where you are, to see if you might have a chance to read it, or if it is too late at night, and you have already gone to sleep. At this moment it is exactly 10:40 pm where you are.

Submitted by Tom Sullivan on Fri, 2012-08-17 08:23.

Thanks Heydrich. Unfortunately, I didn't see it until this morning.

Submitted by Heydrich on Thu, 2012-08-16 21:51.

The children are in the van that tries to help the wounded Iraqi civilians at 10:00 in the video. The U.S. murdered one of the children, and wounded two others. I do not know the eventual fate of the wounded. For a 30mm cannon, a vehicle like that is tissue paper.

Incidentally those Apaches gunships are manufactured at a plant located just two miles from where I am typing this.

Submitted by Tom Sullivan on Fri, 2012-08-17 09:49.

A number of things make me suspicious:

  1. The connection at a very young age with the Anne Hamilton Byrne "Family" cult, where children were frequently dosed with a cocktail of psychiatric drugs is worrying.
  2. The way this guy was being feted by a normally compliant and prostituting mass media before Wikileaks had leaked anything. His name was all over the major TV networks, almost every popular newspaper I can think of as well as the high-circulation magazines, such as Time and Der Speigel. Even RTÉ, the Irish state propaganda network, was talking about him as if he had assumed the status of some kind of deity. Again, all of this before Wikileaks had Wikileaked anything. What genuine whistleblower who represents a threat to the powers that be do you know of who can hold press conferences and make public appearances - signing autographs as if he was a celebrity?
  3. If Assange is that much of a threat, then why haven't the US Department of Justice shut Wikileaks down? After all, they could do it to bunch of torrent sites with no due process whatsoever, so what's stopping them?
  4. What you said regarding Israel applies to "secrets" leaked by Wikileaks. Wikileaks has leaked little that wasn't already common knowledge or at least the subject of significant suspicion. On the other hand, amongst the leaks in 2010 were documents of dubious provenance that were pointed to by the mainstream media as containing conclusive proof of Iranian involvement in aiding "enemies of the United States". 
  5. Assange is extremely hostile to 9/11 truth and openly tries to discredit it.
  6. Some of those sitting on the Wikileaks advisory board are: 
  • Ben Laurie, former programmer and security expert at Google, signatory of cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA);
  • Wan Dan, the Chinese dissident who won the 1998 National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Democracy Award;
  • Wang Youcai, founder of the Chinese Democracy Party; and
  • Xiao Qiang, the director of the China Internet Project at the University of California at Berkeley, member of the advisory board of the International Campaign for Tibet, and commentator on Radio Free Asia - a potential CIA front operation.

Yes, Wikileaks "leaked" US Government plans with regard to Syria, but the general intention of the NATO/Israeli axis with regard to Syria was common knowledge amongst those who have their eyes and ears open long before the leak took place. In July of this year, Wikileaks announced that it would release two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and corporations that would prove " embarrassing – not only to Syria but its opponents".  I think you'll find that buried in amongst those emails will be one implicating Syria in something that can give the NATO/Israel axis an excuse to put boots on the ground if their current manufactured insurrection doesn't deliver the required result.

Wikileaks is a classic "limited hangout" operation, where the leaks are either already in the public domain, incomplete, inaccurate, unverifiable or are missing crucial information. The key is to start out leaking good information to establish credibility.  I suggest reading “The Secret Team” by Colonel Prouty, former Joint Chiefs of Staff/CIA liason to see how this tactic has been employed before.  

Submitted by Heydrich on Fri, 2012-08-17 12:20.

Sullivan, thank you for explaining your reasons for having suspicions about wikileaks. I am forced to agree with all of them.

1.The connection at a very young age with the Anne Hamilton Byrne "Family" cult, where children were frequently dosed with a cocktail of psychiatric drugs is worrying.

I have heard about this, but I have not researched it. Therefore I will give you this point.

2.The way Assange was vetted by a normally compliant and prostituting mass media before Wikileaks had leaked anything. His name was all over the major TV networks, almost every popular newspaper I can think of as well as the high-circulation magazines, such as Time and Der Speigel. Even RTÉ, the Irish state propaganda network, was talking about him as if he had assumed the status of some kind of deity. Again, all of this before Wikileaks had Wikileaked anything. What genuine whistleblower who represents a threat to the powers that be do you know of who can hold press conferences and make public appearances - signing autographs as if he was a celebrity?

I did not know this. If it is true, then I have no rebuttal.

3. If Assange is that much of a threat, then why haven't the US Department of Justice shut Wikileaks down? After all, they could do it to bunch of torrent sites with no due process whatsoever, so what's stopping them?

They did shut down all channels whereby people could donate to wikileaks. As for the Internet, wikileaks has some sophistication regarding its distribution across servers. Nonetheless, I shall give you this point too, since Western governments can do anything they wish with the Internet. They are at least as sophisticated as Wikileaks.

4.What you said regarding Israel applies to "secrets" leaked by Wikileaks. Wikileaks has leaked little that wasn't already common knowledge or at least the subject of significant suspicion. On the other hand, amongst the leaks in 2010 were documents of dubious provenance that were pointed to by the mainstream media as containing conclusive proof of Iranian involvement in aiding "enemies of the United States.”

This I did not know about. You win again.

5.Assange is extremely hostile to 9/11 truth and openly tries to discredit it.

Again, I did not know this. You are 5-for-5.

6. Some of those sitting on the Wikileaks advisory board are (then you provide the names).

You win again.

In July of this year, Wikileaks announced that it would release two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and corporations that would prove " embarrassing – not only to Syria but its opponents.” I think you'll find that buried in among those emails will be one implicating Syria in something that can give the NATO/Israel axis an excuse to put boots on the ground if their current manufactured insurrection doesn't deliver the required result.

You are correct yet again. I forgot about that.  

Wikileaks is a classic "limited hangout" operation, where the leaks are either already in the public domain, incomplete, inaccurate, unverifiable, or are missing crucial information. The key is to start out leaking good information to establish credibility.  I suggest reading “The Secret Team” by Colonel Prouty, former Joint Chiefs of Staff/CIA liaison to see how this tactic has been employed before.

Well done, Sullivan. But if wikileaks is a "limited hangout" operation, then what is the motive? To derail genuine pubic inquiry by sewing confusion via conflicting claims? This is interesting. I think I’ll start doing some more digging.

Thanks again for taking the effort to lay out your reasoning.

Submitted by Tom Sullivan on Fri, 2012-08-17 12:32.

But if wikileaks is a "limited hangout" operation, then what is the motive? To derail genuine pubic inquiry by sewing confusion via conflicting claims? This is interesting. I think I'll start doing some more digging.

Governments are aware of the fact that an increasing number of people simply don't trust a word they say. One answer is to set up an organisation or person, give them some counter-culture street cred and keep promoting them so that they take on the status of oracle. You would normally secure the image of this person or organisation by having them leak some genuine and shocking material (such as the butchery in Iraq) to start off with. Then you can later use them to good effect in a well-poisoning exercise. That portion of the public concerned about their nation's actions abroad will have been conned into believing that the source is trustworthy and will be more likely to believe anything that is "leaked" via this source.

Another concern of mine is that Wikileaks appear to sit on information for months before leaking it, for instance, by pre-announcing leaks well before they happen. It is a well-established principle of whistleblowing that you don't bide your time, you make whatever information you have available immediately and in full, to lessen the chance that you will be "suicided" to prevent the information from getting out. I believe that Dr David Kelly's suspicious death is a prime example of what happens when you sit on information that could be damaging to someone in power.

Submitted by Tom Sullivan on Fri, 2012-08-17 12:33.

You win again.

Its not a matter of winning. I was just committing my doubts about Assange to words :)

Submitted by Heydrich on Fri, 2012-08-17 20:21.

(1) You're right. Most of us here at WUFYS do not seek to "win." We seek to learn from each other by exchanging ideas and information.

Unfortunately a couple of people see this exchange as a competition.

Unlike you, these people do not explain their reasoning. They merely throw insults.

(2) On a different topic, you have laid out eight reasons why wikileaks is highly questionable. One of them, you say, is that Assange is hostile toward anyone who does not believe the lies about 9-11. Is that really true? I do not doubt you or dispute you, but for me, if that is true, then that alone is reason enough to dismiss Assange. It's like the Jewish holo-hoax. The instant someone says that he believes the holo-hoax, we can dismiss everything else he says.

(3) I am annoyed.

An article in the UK Guardian says, “In granting asylum, President Correa reinforced his anti-Americanism and assertion of Ecuador's sovereignty, which went down well domestically, although it would probably have little impact on his already high popularity. Opinion polls show Correa has a 70% approval rating, largely due to his huge social spending in the poor nation of 14 million people.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/17/ecuador-moral-high-ground-assange?newsfeed=true

The Guardian article is written in the same tone as articles about Hugo Chavez.

Essentially they all say, “He is wildly popular, but only because of his huge social spending.”

As though this is a bad thing.

When bankers bribe corrupt politicians, and create a Depression for the 99%, this is considered “sound economics.” By contrast, when a government takes care of its average taxpayers, this is considered “bribing the masses.”

I expect the corporate media to spout this shyte, but what annoys me is that the masses believe it.

The bankers, the politicians, and the 1% are eliminating social programs, in order to make the masses starve and die. This is a purely political decision. It has nothing to do with economics. It is theft.

Nonetheless, many people (in the reader comments of the corporate media) echo the refrain, “He is only popular because of his huge social spending.”

As though this is a bad thing.

This is why the Western masses are enslaved and impoverished. Most people are not only stupid, they are defiantly and self-righteously stupid. Thus, most people deserve to be enslaved.

Unfortunately they cause all of us to be enslaved.

Submitted by Tom Sullivan on Fri, 2012-08-17 20:31.

On a different topic, you have laid out eight reasons why wikileaks is highly questionable. One of them, you say, is that Assange is hostile toward anyone who does not believe the lies about 9-11. Is that really true? I do not doubt you or dispute you, but for me, if that is true, then that alone is reason enough to dismiss Assange. It's like the Jewish holo-hoax. The instant someone says that he believes the holo-hoax, we can dismiss everything else he says.

The text quoted below is excerpted from an interview with Assange by Matthew Bell of the Belfast Telegraph:

His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

Make of this what you will, but to me it just rubber-stamped him as an intelligence asset.

Submitted by Heydrich on Fri, 2012-08-17 21:02.

Thank you very much for digging that out!!!!!!!!!

Yes, Assange hangs himself.

I would have agreed with Assange if he had said, “I'm annoyed that people are distracted by 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies for war or mass financial fraud.”

But Assange doesn’t say that. Instead, he refers to questions about 9-11 as a “false conspiracy.”

OBJECTION: Suppose Assange said this in order to gain credibility with most people. “Since I agree that the official story about 9-11 is true, you should all agree that I am sincere.”

RESPONSE: Nonsense. 9-11 involved the murder of 3,000 people (some of which jumped from a 100-story skyscrapers), and launched the “war on terror.” Anyone who uses the official lies in order to "gain credibility" is a scum bag.

OBJECTION: Suppose Matthew Bell of the Belfast Telegraph made this up in order to discredit Assange. Supose Assange didn't really say it. Suppose it was simply a misquote or a misunderstanding.

RESPONSE: Nonsense. 9-11 is a serious issue. Unless you can show me that Assange specificially repudiated Matthew Bell, I regard the quote as true.

I was permanently banned from two different web sites because I condemned moviemaker Michael Moore. Not because Moore worships Obama and the Democratic Party, but because Moore upholds the lies about Syria.

Submitted by Tom Sullivan on Fri, 2012-08-17 12:40.

So in the light of all the above, the threats of the UK government could be just more theatre designed to lend credibilty to the Wikileaks operation.

Submitted by Heydrich on Fri, 2012-08-17 20:39.

“So in the light of all the above, the threats of the UK government could be just more theatre designed to lend credibility to the Wikileaks operation.”

Yes, that is possible, but it is also possible that the embassy drama is real.

Question: Is Wikileaks genuine?

My answer: I’m not sure. There are grounds to believe so, but there are also grounds to doubt it. I don’t have enough information to make a judgment, but Wikileaks’ dubious elements (e.g. Assange’s upholding of 9-11 lies) seriously erodes Wikileaks’ credibility.

Question: But if the entire Wikileaks thing is a scam, is it possible that so many people could be in on it?

My answer: It’s not a question of being “in on it.” As with the holo-hoax, 9-11, national finances, and so on, the BIG LIES are hatched by a few key people, and then echoed throughout society.

Repetition creates belief, which creates more repetition, which creates more belief, which creates more repetition, and so on. The biggest lies of all are maintained not so much as a "conspiracies" as by the sheer stupidity of the public.

Deception is the strongest political force on the planet. It works because most people want deception. They want comfortable and convenient fairy tales.

 

Submitted by Heydrich on Fri, 2012-08-17 21:55.

A perusal of web articles shows that the original interview in the Belfast Telegraph destroyed Assange’s credibility with millions of people.

Webster Tarpley suspects that Assange is paid by the CIA.

Thierry Meyssan says Assange is part of an American government “political diversion.”

Wayne Madsen says it’s possible that Assange is not a CIA employee, but Madsen accuses bankers, and people like George Soros, of being involved in a campaign  of manipulation to fool Assange into thinking he was onto something big.

And 9/11 is only one of the issues concerning Assange.

The Powers-That-Be have always infiltrated populist groups in order to arrest their members, or confuse their followers. Jews do the same thing with Neo-Nazis. This tactic has now become endemic. It is more effective than ever, for two reasons.

(1) As the Depression worsens, the masses look for things they can use to make themselves feel better about their misery. They become self-righteous, and quasi-religious. During the 1930s Depression, the masses self-righteously condemned Hitler. With today’s Depression, the masses self-righteously condemn people like Assad of Syria. The masses not only believe the lies; they viciously defend them. They defend their slavery. Meanwhile, because of increased self-righteousness, they believe in things like Wikileaks.

(2) Because the corporate media is totally discredited, alternative figures have gained power using the Internet. An example is Juan Cole, a supposedly “anti-war” person who is definitely a paid asset. Popular web site Counterpunch seems Lefist, but it too upholds the 9/11 lies. Popular web site Common Dreams seems Lefitist, but it upholds the Syria lies. Popular personality Alex Jones is questionable for many reasons. In Europe, popular “Leftist” outlets like Le Monde are definitely paid assets. In Venezuela, Marxist groups are paid by Washington to rail against Chavez, saying Chavez is no friend of the people. Here again the Depression plays a role. When people are desperate for money, they eagerly become paid assets. It’s the same with Al Qaeda mercenaries paid by the NATO-Israeli-GCC alliance.

As Sullivan points out, effective disinformation contains elements of truth. The more truth, the better. The Powers-The-Be release actual “bombshells” knowing they will have little effect, while concealing things that would actually hurt them

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer