“assaulting the embassy”

“Patiño preceded his announcement with a lengthy argument against any British action against Ecuador’s embassy in London. In remarks Wednesday, he said the Ecuadorian government had received a written notice from British authorities that they would ‘assault’ the country’s embassy in London if Ecuadorian officials failed to hand over Assange to British authorities.”

This is both wrong, and a stupid way for the British government to play it. I don’t see how they can be forced to give Assange safe passage out of the country, but if they feel that strongly about it, they can always play the game of making him live in the Ecuadorian Embassy forever.

But “assaulting” an embassy? There may be some precedents for this, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head. The sanctity of embassies is well-known to be one of the pillars of international relations. And for the British government to do it to Ecuador would amount to an act of bullying contempt for a small South American nation.

Also, it’s not like they’d be storming an embassy to capture Osama bin Laden or some lethal mafia kingpin. Assange has been charged with unsafe sex without permission. Bad if true. But does it really warrant the invasion of an embassy? It simply makes Assange look all the more sympathetic here.

I have little patience with the reflexive tendency simply to oppose the United States on every issue no matter what. That’s just robo-politics; the desire always to be in a position of opposition to power is the “beautiful soul” move par excellence. But I have the strong sense that my country is very much in the wrong in this case. I don’t know what Assange really did in Sweden, of course, but he is obviously being treated in a way that goes well beyond the stated charges. And as far as I can tell, he simply did what journalists are supposed to do. Wikileaks is a great read. The U.S. can go after Manning (though they’re doing it a bit brutally), but I don’t see how they can legitimately go after Assange.