In UK threat to Ecuador, experts see mistake

n/t

disaster and made the UK look like an Imperialist bully harking back a 100 years.

No doubt some hapless lower down in the Foreign office will be carpeted and made take the blame.

I doubt the arrival of police vans was part of a raid rather an anticipation of demonstrators. Perhaps The Met is on the ball unlike William Hague.

you'd realise the police presence was really no more than a few loaded up vans as would be used in Soho and Mayfair at night rounding drunks - that's partly for their own self protection. I've seen no footage to convey there were many demonstrators there anyway. Largest group was the media.

Yes - its a diplomatic fuck up.

"It was a warning meant to remind Ecuador that Britain’s patience has limits." --the Associated Pukes

The Associated Pukes state this as an objective fact in the lede line of the article, not as a quote from a British official. But it's just as likely, and even more likely, that, "It was a warning meant to intimidate Ecuador, to make Ecuador feel small and unimportant, to bully Ecuador and to force them to do what the Corporate Empire wants, human rights be damned."

And it is not at all clear that this was a "mistake" or that England "messed up" in issuing this threat, but at least these statements are attributed. It is quite possible that England intended to carry through on the threat, and that, if Ecuador hadn't been smart and published the letter--creating a worldwide diplomatic furor--England would have treated the Ecuadoran embassy like somebody's hovel in Iraq, smashed down their door and grabbed this terrorist (um, journalist) that the U.S. would like to torture.

This "framing" of the issue, by first of all stating as objective fact that England only meant the threat as a negotiating tactic ("Britain's patience has limits") and then, in paragraph two, endorsing the view that it was a "mess up" ("Experts and ex-diplomats say..."), and only then getting to attributed quotes--one of which (Oliver Miles) flatly contradict's AP's opening line--is sleazy journalism, which is used to fog readers' minds and plant the official line as reality. Most news consumers read headlines or, at most, lede lines and first paragraphs. They won't get to the paragraph where a former British diplomat laughs at the official line.

And all this back and forth about whether England really meant it (after AP has told us that they didn't) distracts from the core of this news story: England's and Sweden's insupportable negotiating position. Assange is not charged with anything in Sweden--even after all this time. He is only wanted for questioning. Ecuador has said that Swedish prosecutors can come right into the embassy and, with no impediments, question Assange--and they refused. Ecuador asked for assurance that Assange would not be extradited from Sweden to the U.S. (where he could be tortured and executed). Sweden refused--which muddies the question of why they want Assange in custody. It seems to have nothing to do with the absurd allegations of the two women (most of which they have retracted). It seems much more likely that they are doing the U.S. a favor for motives unknown (more than likely corporate greed of some kind, with Karl Rove involved--or perhaps Sweden, too, fears more Wikileaks revelations).



---

*Britain’s Foreign Office insists its missive was 'not a threat,' something that (former British ambassador Oliver) Miles dismissed with a laugh.

'If I tell you, "I’m not threatening you but I DO have a very large stick here," it’s a question of semantics,' he said."

--from the OP)