[AndresSerrano]

Correa takes the same bragadoccio stand against 'the empire' because like all dictators or dictators to be, he needs an external enemy in his quest to constantly animate his populist base. Being from that very fair country and visiting there a lot, and taking a whole lot of car and motorcycle trips through both countries, I can definitely tell you that while Chavez has acted out both his moronic ideology and his utter corruptness, ole Correa is a WHOLE lot smarter than that,and a tad less corrupt. He talks the talk but his walk is of a completely different nature. Ecuador has actually advanced, tremendously during the past ten years, while Venezuela has only regressed. Yes, Chavez paid for (so they say, I was not present when the cash stash changed hands) Correa's election and both countries are busily trying to build up bilateral trade in oil, which is all they have. Correa continues to maintain the currency of the evil empire as the legal tender in Ecuador. This , by definition, puts a tremendous brake on inflation, while ole Chavez keeps printing bills to pay off his populist promises on the backs of the very same people he is suppossedly helping. 20% inflation is a GOOD thing in Venezuela. Both have beaten up on the press and its freedom and have (as all tin pot dictators must) acquired quite a panoply of state owned/controlled media outlets, both abuse the Power of the State to further their particular ideologies and party hegemony. They diverge in many things, but the primary difference is that Correa has CLEARLY, used the petro bucks that drizzle into Ecuador to the advantage of its people. Roads, EVERYWHERE in Ecuador are improving at a rapid rate. What were once "back of beyond" dirt paths practically, are today well paved, well signed roads. Latin America has always been in dire need of a little less poverty and a little more fairness in income distribution. By forcing the private sector to compete with the state for talent, Chavez is moving the ball in the right direction. While Chavez is, literally, intent on destroying the Venezuelan private sector, Correa has learned that the private sector is the key to economic prosperity and is acting accordingly. As to the current case, he needs attention, he will get it any way he can get it. Seems an opportunity to good to pass up. To think I was once at Buckingham Palace to witness a dear friend of mine present his credentials as ambassador.....

[Social_Critic]

The closest I came to Buckingham Palace was the delivery door in the back, when I was bringing 12 pizzas for the Queen's birthday party.

[Moshe]

This Correa guy is really annoying me. He is throwing his weight around, contravening the legal systems oif civilised countries like GHreat Britain and Sweden. Britain should requision the embassy as an example to others.
I saw that idiot Correa strutting about on television.
He looks like an uncontrolled cock in a barnyard. Clearly, no sort of civilised society can exist under strutting, trouble making dictators like him
Of course no one is going to re colonise Ecuador.
But good houses are always in demand in London, Stockholm and Washington DC. I suggest the Ecuadorian embassies in these capitals be requisioned by the relevent governments and the buildings put to productive use, rather than places to harbour criminals and terrorists and to cause mayhem.
British taxpayers are being put to great expense by the circus outside the Equadorian embassy. The British officers should seize anything of value in the embassy to aleviate the costs. They can then deport the embassy staff- who owe a fortune in unpaid parking and speeding fines- and send assange off to Sweden.
Problem solved

[Social_Critic]

Moshe, I believe your proposal involves breaking diplomatic relations with Ecuador. This is a move I seriously doubt the UK, USA, or Sweden would do.

Rafael Correa isn't a dictator, he was elected President of his country. He may have some autocracy issues, but they're not worse than the autocracy we see emerging in Hungary.

The right to give asylum is something nations value, and I really doubt the three nations you listed would break relations with Ecuador just to get Assange to Sweden. If you are so hot under the collar about this, then you are probably one of those who are willing to persecute the man for political reasons. And it is this willingness which of course leads us to conclude Assange deserves asylum in the first place.

[Moshe]

I doubt these countries would do that. But maybe it would be good if they did, if only to show this upstart state that it is of no importance. I think Ecuador needs the USA et al more than the USA, Britain or Sweden needs Ecuador

[Social_Critic]

I don't know that it would stop at Ecuador. Such a serious breach of diplomatic convention would lead other nations to take a hostile view towards the UK. Remember, this is purely a UK action, and neither the US nor Sweden would be involved. I doubt other European nations would back the UK if it pursues such an irrational move, therefore the UK would be isolated. On the other hand, nations such as Argentina, Venezuela, and possibly Brazil would react. And as the world changes, they may decide to switch their procurement and trade to China rather than Europe. As it is, Europe finds itself in bad shape because the euro is so high. This is the reason why I believe the UK will do nothing about it. And I expect the Swedes to defuse this topic by making a deal to guarantee that Assange would not be deported to the USA.

If I were Assange, I would make sure they do not however deport him from Sweden to Australia because the Australians may decide to ship him to the US anyway. These nations have a very flexible moral stance, they have shown their ability to disregard international law and conventions as they see fit, therefore I would expect them to behave unethically if that's what the US expects from them. The torture camp in Poland, and other incidents tell us Assange is in danger if the US is focused on getting to him, and we know the US behaves like a rogue nation when it feels the need.

[Moshe]

What I find really outrageous is that Ecuador has commited a grave provocation against Great Britain. It is an insult, the equivelent of pissing in our food.
Imagine if we behaved like this towards third world countries?
Social Critic talks of repercusions from Latin America if the UK acts against the Ecuador embassy, in order to detain a person who defied the terms of his bail.
Just a couple of examples of what happens to embassies in third world countries:
The Israeli embassy set alight and invaded by mobs in Cairo while police did nothing to stop them. No repercusions.
Irans Revolutionary Guard invade the US embassy in Tehran and hold embassy staff hostage. No repercussions.
Staff at the London Libyan embassy shoot dead a British Police Woman. No repercusions.
And the populist movements in Latin America regarded the actions of the Revolutionary Guard in Tehran and the mobs in Cairo as heroic and commendable.
Yet they are puffing themselves up into pompous outrage at the idea that British police may enter the Uruguay embassy to arrest a fugetive from justice.
Is something wrong with this picture??

[Moshe]

To further illustrate this bizarre alliance of Latin american populists and Islamist juhadists.
Venezuela is now an Iranian base in the Americas, with Iranian drones and other missiles placed in Venezuela and aimed at the USA
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q ... h-america/
Furthermore, Correa is part of that brand of Latin american poppulism that applauded the sacking of the Israeli embassy in Cairo. They are also ardent supporters of the Iranian regime, one of the most represive in the world, yet bleat about Britain and Sweden contravening human rights!!
Unbeleivable!!
These guys deserve no rerspect and should be treated asw parias by the civilised world

[Social_Critic]

What I find really outrageous is that Ecuador has commited a grave provocation against Great Britain. It is an insult, the equivelent of pissing in our food.Imagine if we behaved like this towards third world countries?

I guess you must be feeling sarcastic today?

[wat0n]

The UK's threats of storming the embassy over this particular issue were not exactly worthy of a first-world state either...

[Moshe]

I don't think that Britain was considering "storming" the embassy, more entering in an orderly manner and aprehending a fugitive from justice.

[Moshe]

Social critic, I was not being sarcastic, I was being factual.
Maybe the British embassy in ecuador could start giving refuge to people wanted by the Ecuador police??

Interesting that the Ecuadorian govt REFUSED to grant asylum to Aliaksandr Barankov who exposed corruption in the Bylorussian government and will face a death sentence if he is sent back to Bylorussia. Yet the Ecuadorian govt is determined to send him back to his death.
But they are equally determined to shelter rapist assange, who DOES NOT face a death sentence.

[Social_Critic]

Well, we don't know that Assange is a rapist. I think he's not. I know that in the UK, under Her Majesty's law, he's not a rapist. This alone makes the British position pretty weird. We also know the US has a death penalty, and we know the US is willing to violate habeas corpus. So Assange does face a clear and present danger.

If British forces do enter Ecuador's embassy then that's of course a treaty breach. That would be considered by the international community roguish behaviour just as bad if not worse than the Iranian invasion of the US embassy. I know the British government won't act now, because the OAS just issued a resolution which says the members back Ecuador. So this would put the UK now in the position of being in a hostile position towards a large number of nations.

I don't particularly like Correa, but I do support Assange in this particular case, even though he was irresponsible releasing the information. But if somebody wants to get to him, then do so under British law for releasing information, not because of a trumped up sexual charge.

[Moshe]

Social Critic, Britain has an extradition tgreadty with Sweden. Sweden has requested that he be extradited to Sweden to face serious charges. His refusal to do so suggests guilt.
The US has NOT requested the extradition of Assange and has no intention of doing so
If it did, the UK would be more likely to comply with this request than Sweden, which does not have a history of legal compliance with the USA.
As Assange has been responsible for putting peoples lives in danger, he should face charges in relation to this, but I doubt if he will.

As to Ecuador and those puffed up Latin American countries, they have a false idea of their own importance. They contribute very little part from Bananas and coffee to the world economy. We3 can get coffee and bananas from africa anbd the Carribean

[Social_Critic]

Moshe, the thing is those puffed up Latin American countries are what is known as customers for overpriced European goods. I got the sense that if the UK were to invade Ecuador's embassy there would be economic retaliation against European companies (if the EU were to back Britain), in which case the Latin Americans would turn to the US, Japan and China to substitute European products.

Regarding whether Assange is guilty or not, under UK law he is not. I don't think he's guilty under US law. Why didn't the US ask for the UK to send Assange over? Because he's not in jail in the UK. If they did, Assange would have fled, of course. Once the Swedes get their paws on him, however, he's locked down, and then the US can spring the trap. There's nothing in either the British, nor the Swedish, nor the US stance which tells us they are going to be honest. And it is the insistence of people such as you to take this so over the top that convinces people like me that not only do they have conspiracy, it also tells me you would applaud whatever they did to Assange, including violating his human rights. After all, the US tortures its prisoners and it seems many people think this is ok.

[oppose_obama]

He's a nobody in charge of a nobody country