Assange's options: How could he escape the UK?

Assange's options: How could he escape the UK?

Summary: Despite Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange's successful asylum bid, he picked the worst embassy to try and escape from. Here's why, and how he could possibly evade the U.K. authorities.

SHARE:

 |  Image 3 of 9

  • Thumbnail 1
  • Thumbnail 2
  • Thumbnail 3
  • Thumbnail 4
  • Thumbnail 5
  • Thumbnail 6
  • Thumbnail 7
  • Thumbnail 8
  • Thumbnail 9
  • 1. Run, and don't look back

    Assange could wait until nobody is looking and make a run for it. But that's highly unlikely. Not only is the entire building swamped with CCTV, the whole area is surrounded by U.K. police officers. 

    Even if he falls out of a window or off the balcony, he's more likely to be arrested before anyone calls an ambulance. That said, if he made it to the world-famous Harrods store across the road, it's big enough to lose anyone in there.

    Police are inside the building that houses both the Ecuadorian and Colombian embassies, including in the hallway outside the door that separates Ecuador from the U.K., and even in the elevator preventing Assange from skipping to Colombia for similar asylum requests. 

    He can run as fast as he can, but he would be tackled to the ground and cuffed immediately.

    Likelihood: 0/10.

    Image credit: Charlie Osborne/ZDNet.

  • 2. Diplomatic car to the airport

    Why the Ecuadorian embassy, of all embassies? Really, Mr. Assange, I know the Ecuadorians have been good so far -- granting him asylum and kindly putting him up in their embassy for two months -- but it's the most difficult building to escape from.

    Seriously. It's nigh on impossible. 

    A diplomatic car remains the soil of that country even in transit, in this case Ecuador. But getting from the embassy to the car is paved with police officers ready to arrest him. Even with zip-lines and Harry Potter-like invisible cloaks, the 20-meter path between the door of the embassy to the car waiting outside is enough of U.K. soil to nab the Wikileaks founder and take him into custody.

    Even if Assange did get to the diplomatic vehicle, the U.K. authorities can simply stop the car and prevent it from moving until Assange crawls out gasping for water. The U.K. can't search the car or pull Assange from the car, so sitting and waiting would be the only option.

    But should he get to an airport, he would still have to check through security which remains U.K. soil, until he passes into the international zone. Diplomatic passports are to aid security, not to give the holder a right to automatic immunity.

    Likelihood: 2/10.

    Image credit: Google Maps.

  • 3. What about a helicopter?

    The building is made up of a series of converted apartments. Ecuador only occupies the ground floor of the building, and U.K. police continue to remain in place in the hallways and elevators where Ecuador does not extend its reach.

    Simply put, even if a chopper was granted diplomatic status, Assange would not be able to get to the roof. He could theoretically climb up a rope from the embassy's balcony he spoke from on Sunday, but this would be dangerous and would risk his life. Plus, U.K. authorities may not grant the helicopter to fly outside a specified fly-zone in the capital.

    Even if he did, a helicopter may not have enough fuel to get to another country. If Assange was able to seek asylum from another country with say a parking bay or a garage within that country's diplomatic territory, now we're talking. 

    Likelihood: 3/10.

    Image credit: Bing Maps.

Topics: Government UK, Government, Government US, Privacy, Security

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Related Stories

Talkback

94 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Now THIS is what I call a legit article.

    Unlike Gerwirtz's poisonous and uncalled-for "journalism":
    http://www.zdnet.com/traitor-baiter-assange-is-no-hero-and-neither-is-deadbeat-ecuador-7000002840/
    zhangkhaien
  • Diplomatic bag?

    Seeing as the Royal mail can't deliver a letter nowadays reliably he could easily end up on someones' doorstep half way up a tower block in Hackney.
    AndyPagin
    • It's OK; I've mailed him a policemans uniform.

      He'll be able to walk out in a couple of days... just needs to wrap a quilt round him to get the riht stature first and he should be able to carry it off. Freedom is just a matter of time.
      johnmckay
      • ok

        But he'll never pull off the charade of being a british cop unless he's seen bashing some students with a billy club.
        Scarface Claw
  • Ummm....

    No. Let the remaining, boring, mundane but necessary diplomatic stuff play out. The weakest player by far in all this is Sweden -- their behavior and responses have been confused and utterly unconvincing. They need to be pressed far more than they have been to both explain their behavior and why other options for questioning Assange (that apparently have been used before in similar circumstances) have not been offered.

    There is also the semi-secret (everyone seems to know about) US grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia that has been "investigating" connections between Assange and Bradley. That's been going on for well more than a year, which likely means they are at or near the indictment stage. While Obama and his crew have been running things laughably better than Bush and his people ever did, they have been very hawkish (timid, confused news reporting and Republican rubbish aside) and more than a little too harsh on whistleblowers. That eye-rollingly foolish business with Thomas Drake, even though it was a carryover from the Bush days, should never have gone as far as it did before being finally dropped, and even then only under pressure. The DC area newspapers are shadows of what they use to be, including the Washington Post and especially the Baltimore Sun, so there is very little of the snoopy reporter stuff going on anymore to at least help mitigate excessive "Big Brother" government misbehavior. This Assange grand jury stuff really needs much more "exposure," but unfortunately this being an election year, all serious inquiries and discussions are for all practical purposes off the table until after the Presidential election. On the other hand, this is not that far off (although Assange better hope that Obama stays President -- Romney's team already includes people who would very likely push for Assange to be made an example of to Anonymous and other hackivists.)

    As far as "Team GB" goes, they so far have been taking the low-brow, brutish "let's get on with it" middleman route. They may, however, become more susceptible to a diplomatic solution if they keep coming off overly cloddish and incompetent, especially if there might be political ramifications for their Prime Minister, David Cameron, from all this. They are actually in the best position to quietly negotiate with both Sweden and the US for a face-saving end to the mess.

    Now, as far as a more exciting solution to Assange's little predicament, I can think of a few off-hand, but I'm not telling. However, they are not completely unobvious....
    JustCallMeBC
    • Where should we send

      your recent orders of tinfoil hats?
      John Zern
      • What?

        You make tin foil hats as well as create pretend orders for them? Who says American enterprise is dead....
        JustCallMeBC
    • Sorry BC

      I don't consider the people doing the exposing as "Whistle Blowers". To be a W.B., you have to expose wrongdoing. All these guys did were to expose private information. Someone made a "derogatory" remark about someone in the middle east. Someone expressed an informed opinion about something. Are these wrongdoings? Of couse not. They are embarrassments, yes. Do they affect working with those people, yes. Is telling one of your coworkers that the big boss is an idiot and having someone post about what you said an exposure of wrongdoing? No.

      Now, do I completely put the blame on Assange? No. Why? Becuase if you are going to say something you don't want the whole world to see, NEVER ever put that information on the internet. Not even a private email. There is always someone looking. The most you can do is make things as secure as possible.
      hforman9
      • Really, that's all there was?

        Jeez, this it becoming like the Mike Barnicle Episode (He was this annoying, widely read columnist for the Boston Globe back in the 90's. One of his periodic columns would be a long list of trite quips along the lines of "Why don't they make the entire plane with the same stuff they use to make those indestructible black boxes?" One of his lists supposedly lifted items from a book by George Carlin called "Brain Droppings," which led to charges of plagiarism that went national, and eventually, indirectly led to him being dropped by the Globe. The problem? If you actually looked into the matter, Barnicle never plagiarized. Carlin's book was an encyclopedia of quips gathered from old joke lists and such, and at least two of the items Barnicle supposedly plagiarized were actually repeats from earlier Barnicle columns that predated Carlin's book, and the rest of the supposedly plagiarized quips were either long in the public domain or simply didn't match up well. I ended up in all these bizarre online fights with dimwitted writers over the whole mess. And I didn't even like Barnicle.)

        In any case you might want to fire up Google and do some more searching on what other info Wikileaks revealed that should not have been unknown in the first place. Take, oh, say Iraq civilian causalities. Remember all those "controversies" over how many civilians were actually killed during the war? There were counts ranging from that of the Iraq Body Count (~50k in 2007, and which was based on news and NGO reports) to higher numbers from that of statistically based, scientific surveys like that from John Hopkins (~600k) and even higher one from a polling firm, ORBS (> 1 million). The US military claimed that it didn't keep counts, and generally referred to the IBC numbers. But there was at least one report that indicated that they did keep some type of count, and the Pentagon did very quietly via (without notice --seriously: it was posted on an military site and the news media did not notice it for months) released a partial count in July of 2010, but that appeared to be only due in anticipation of a big Wikileaks release later in October that included much more info about Iraqi civilian causalities. Google up the BBC article "Wikileaks: Iraq war logs increase pressure for openness" by Paul Reynolds for more detailed info. (By the way, the John Hopkins/Lancet count is probably the most accurate overall.)

        We really don't have the journalism quality and strength we use to have to ferret out lies, deceit and misbehavior in government, and that's a situation that appears to be still steadily getting worse. People like Assange and organizations like Wikileaks and Anonymous are basically filling, however irregularly and unevenly, a large gap that has opened in what use to be called the "free press." I personally would much rather see journalistic standards tightened and a resurgence of investigative reports on serious issues, but....I would also love to see the return of full size Ring Dings. Not gonna happen. So for the time being at least, Assange, for all his faults, is not a villain and is indeed what we kind of need right now, whether you like it or not.
        JustCallMeBC
        • Thanks, Just

          I was gonna go all medieval on him for his morals-depend-on-temptation tack, but you did it much betta...
          Lightning Joe
  • Or...he could just surrender himself to UK authorities

    All of the Assange acolytes blithely and willfully forget that there is a victim in Sweden being denied justice.
    Your Non Advocate
    • RE: Or...he could just surrender himself to UK authorities

      Good. Then if Sweden is really interested in justice, all they need to do is guarantee that the extradition will be to address the rape charges and not lead to extradition to the US. If not, they can't be trusted. And based on the sort of details Julian has exposed, I would lean towards the "they can't be trusted" camp.

      gary
      gdstark13
      • Yep

        Good point. Sweden has long been known as a hotbed of dark conspiracies, crooked judges, and slapdash judicial proceedings. The so-called Swiss Army Knife is feared around the world, and for good reason.
        Robert Hahn
        • Sweden is not Swiss

          They are Scandinavians. Just thought you should know!!!
          eargasm
        • re: Yep

          Hello Mr. Hahn, could you explain what a "Swiss-" Army Knife has to do with Sweden?
          bartle.berlin
      • Why?

        He has violated the rights of the American people, is hacking no longer a crime? Who is Assange to decide for whole countries what they will do with their information? The man is a Fascist, since when is he the arbiter of all that's right? We have laws, courts, privacy, for reasons.
        stano360
        • Why?

          Is he the one who did the hacking? Are you assuming that he is accountable to American law, even though he's not an American?
          gdstark13
      • Hold a hearing at the embassy

        If the Swedes are interested in justice why don't they convene a hearing at the embassy. That way the prosecution can submit their charges and accusations and the judge can determine if it needs to go further.
        Beejay54
    • I haven't followed the details

      and obviously it hasn't been proven in court, yet, (and not to diminish the victim's right for justice) but that 4 letter word has been used in much lesser and non-politically motivated circumstances. To use it in a much more visible situation and as a way to get to someone that you want to get......

      Is the accusation true? Don't know. Is this part of a larger plot? Don't know. Too many hidden agendas in the world? Absolutely.
      wingnut1024
      • Yes, it has not been proven in court, yet

        but only because he will not go and answer questions that could free him or lead to charges in court.

        The fact that it has not been proven in court is because he does not even want it to go to court, and he will hide behind wikileaks as a shield.
        John Zern