Pro-Clinton media calls UK to suspend diplomatic immunity of Ecuador Embassy over WikiLeaks publication of Hillary’s emails
2 November, 2016
By Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Chair, Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights.
A Newsweek op-ed article authored by Paul Webster Hare, “Assange And Wikileaks Make a Mockery of the Diplomacy They Enjoy”  – also published in other media– asks the UK authorities to consider the suspension of the diplomatic inviolability of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in order to stop the WikiLeaks publication of Hillary Clinton emails. Webster Hare, a lecturer at Boston University, concludes after his plea:
It appears utterly odd that this author, at the same time that he profusely cites in his text the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, ignores Article 22, § 1, main one in that agreement signed by UK and other 60 countries:
“§ 1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.” 
In advocating for rescind the applicability of the Vienna Convention in the case of Ecuador’s diplomatic mission, the author adduces that WikiLeaks – in particularly Mr Julian Assange whom all over the text is equated with that organization – has “stolen property” (the files containing Hillary Clinton’s emails). What Newsweek do not mention is that WikiLeaks is only publishingthe material they receive in its journalist endeavour; WikiLeaks is not ‘hacking’ it.
Secondly, the Newsweek author is utterly wrong in imputing the Republic of Ecuador or Mr Assange a violation of the stipulated in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations – which makes his interpretation of Article 41, § 3, inappropriate. Nevertheless is true the article says that “premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law…” the following it is also true:
A. The government of Ecuador has not been engaged at the actual embassy premises in London in any interfering activities towards the US presidential election.
B. Likewise Mr. Assange, and for that part the organization WikiLeaks, is not engaged at the actual embassy premises in London in journalist/publishing activities concerning emails of a candidate to the US presidential election.
This is from the statement by WikiLeaks regarding the publication sites of their materials, text contained in the release by WikiLeaks of the 24 of October 2016: 
As in almost all articles at mainstream Western media – staunch supporters of Ms Clinton’s candidacy and the geopolitical stances she represents – the Newsweek piece do not treat the main issues in the context: a) whether the published Clinton’s emails kept on private servers are a matter of state-secrets or of national security, b) whether thecontent of the revelations constitutes aggravating wrongdoings of for instance Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation, the DNC tops, etc., or c) whether the revelations done by WikiLeaks refers to true facts –which should be the paramount concern of the analyses, instead of solely focusing in the messenger, or in how the true was obtained and by whom.
The accusation of “thief” against Mr Julian Assange is not the only libellous in the Newsweek article. Webster Hare also declares that Assange has been charged of a crime in Sweden:
The TRUTH: Mr Assange has never been charged of any crime. See a summarized itinerary of this political case at “Mr. Julian Assange has never been charged of any crime. The powers behind the hunt of WikiLeaks.” 
And the spinning goes on:
The TRUTH: In spite that the Swedish extradition request is, in my opinion, mounted in a legal ‘charade’, Ecuador granted asylum because of a documented risk of extradition to U.S. 
Finally, The Newsweek article suggests as ‘evident conclusion’ an issue which is only under investigation phase; hence not clear where it will be dismissed after the US presidential elections; namely, what Hillary Clinton has repeated about a conspiracy of Russia and Assange against her candidacy:
The TRUTH: The Newsweek author links to a CNN article in its turn quoting one mysterious source (“one US official”) who said that “US intelligence officials are still investigating”; meaning, there is no conclusive evidence as purported by Hillary Clinton – and echoed by the Newsweek’s author Webster.
The Newsweek author’s proposal to the UK authorities constitutes a wrong interpretation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. As it was shown above, the article is libellous against he person of Mr. Assange, and, in the opinion of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, it represents an action against both the human rights and the political rights of Mr Assange. Further, the article’s main thesis remains a negation of what a publicist or journalist endeavour stands in its essence.
References & Notes
 Paul Webster Hare, “Assange And Wikileaks Make a Mockery of the Diplomacy They Enjoy”. Newsweek, 30 October 2016.
This article is a republication of Newsweek previously appeared in other Western media sympathetic to Hillary Cinton’s presidential candidacy. See Julian “Assange and WikiLeaks are harming diplomacy more than the Clinton campaign”.
 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocols. Organization of American States, Vienna, 18 April 1961.
 WikiLeaks Editorial Board statement on the status of Julian Assange, Ecuador and the US election, 23 October 2016.
 M Ferrada de Noli, “Mr. Julian Assange has never been charged of any crime. The powers behind the hunt of WikiLeaks.” The Indicter magazine, 17 September 2016.
 M Ferrada de Noli, “Sweden’s argument for refusing to issue non-extradition guarantees to Mr Assange is fallacious and hides real commitment to the U.S. – Analysis“. The Indicter magazine, 20 February 2016.