Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmix | Hacker News Reader

It's possible it won't be detected.

Parcels sent locally don't go through nearly the level of security as customs puts foreign packages through.

It'd be surprising if a high profile place such as an embassy didn't have its own off-site mail sorting facility. Many high profile non-government places already do this. It's fairly easy to evacuate a mail facility full of contractors (from Pitney-Bowes or other) every time you receive a suspicious package or your systems detect harmful chemicals; to do the same with your corporate HQ would be far more disruptive.

For the US Embassy yes, but there can't be more than a dozen people working at the Ecuadorian embassy (I believe it's physically located inside a block of flats). Diplomatic missions for poorer, or smaller, countries tend to be relatively mundane affairs.

Isn't it technically a foreign package travelling from the UK (I presume) to the Ecuadorean embassy, which is Ecuadorean soil?

It is not actually their soil :) [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterrito...

Contrary to popular belief, embassies are not in fact foreign soil.

Yeah, I'm pretty surprised that Her Majesty's government hasn't already raided the Ecuadorian embassy, taken Assange into custody, and handed him over to the Swedes. Ecuador is a pretty insignificant country, and it's not like they'd catch any flak from the American government for such a move.

The diplomatic fallout in the event of a raid would be huge. There was a meeting of all foreign ministers of South America who issued a joint statement to condemn the UK for threatening to raid the embassy.

Would it be that big of a deal? South America (with the possible exception of Brazil) isn't exactly that economically or politically influential.

You're suggesting that England - one of the most powerful countries in the world - should throw away all ties with an entire continent of countries, just so they can arrest a man to be questioned about sexual assault allegations?

Yes, it's obvious the real reason they want to get to him, but come on.

Unless of course you're a powerful British business leader with business interests in South America, in which case the relationships would be pretty darn important and you'd be communicating that to your MP.

For example, British Petroleum has significant interests in South America.

...because when you have Argentina grandstanding over the Falkland Islands the best thing to do is piss off everyone else in South America. The UK needs all the goodwill it can get in the region.

If you attack someone's embassy, suddenly all of your own embassies are vulnerable to people who want to attack you. MAD.

If they did that, every other country in the world would be within their rights to enter British embassies and detain people they don't like. That would not be a wise move

There is precedent:

"Thatcher—who was kept apprised of the situation by Whitelaw—determined that British law would be applied to the embassy, despite the Vienna Convention, under which the embassy is considered Iranian soil."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege

That building had been completely taken over by non-Iranians. Even still, the British didn't enter it until the hostage-takers began executing the Iranians.

"Three further shots were fired during the course of the imam's conversation with Oan. Oan announced that a hostage had been killed, and the rest would die in 30 minutes unless his demands were met. A few minutes later, Lavasani's body was dumped out of the front door."

Considering they were at the time holding 52 American hostages in the US embassy in Tehran, the Iranians couldn't credibly complain about the British rescue operation representing a violation of their rights under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

I guess I don't think that precedent is going to generalize to many other situations.

In all practical terms, the Ecuadorian authorities expect their embassy to be inviolable. It is this expectation and their insistence on this expectation that complicates this matter to no end. It is simply not in British interests to be seen dismissing this expectation as unimportant. My personal view is that a deal should be possible that is acceptable to both Assange and Ecuador, to end this stalemate. Her Majesty's diplomatic representation in Ecuador should be able to make a compelling proposal that saves the day and the face of everyone involved.

> It is simply not in British interests to be seen dismissing this expectation as unimportant.

Maybe that's understating it a bit.

The United Kingdom itself has embassies all over the world, filled with important British people and often in places where they might not be uniformly liked. The British have far more to lose by a breakdown of diplomatic protections than the Ecuadorians do.

http://www.google.com/search?q=british+embassy+attack

What an excessively bad idea as well as a diplomatic gaffe! I am pretty surprised that Her Majesty's government has not been able to negotiate a deal that is acceptable to both Assange and the Ecuador final authority on their involvement in this matter. Assange may want to close the case too. There are offers possible that he will accept.

The British government has no authority to negotiate. It is not up to them to talk to Assange. The UK has legally binding treaty obligations to enforce the European Arrest Warrant that Sweden issued.

It is up to Sweden, not the UK, to decide whether it wants to negotiate or not.

I'm pretty sure they also have legally binding treaty obligations not to enter the embassy, and I guess it would be a question for some international law experts, but from the months of no change it appears to me that this treaty obligation trumps the treaty obligation to arrest him.

He is in the Ecuadorean embassy in the UK

Or if it's being sent from, say, Switzerland.

http://54.243.29.30/img/assange/assange_parcel_front.jpg

Reply on news.ycombinator.com