Is the UK going to invade.......... [Archive]

Catfish

08-16-12, 02:28 AM

Breaking into an Embassy would indeed be an act of war, however i am sure England is capable of generating enough pressure to finally make Ecuador kick Assange out. And if not, some bully will find a way to deport or abduct him later, or plain kill Mr. Assange. Certainly, he is now well-known, so they have to make him a villain first.

A bit OT:

I stilll wonder where the outcry is, about what has leaked out. I mean there is enough stuff to fire high brass and topple governments, from atrocities against international law to secret plans violating everything a "democracy" stands for.
Instead it has become a man hunt trying to shoot the messenger :shifty:

Also if you speak the truth because you think you have to, they will call that treason, and for them it certainly is. But most whistleblowers did not want to speak out against America, but for the America they think it should be, based on law and own national claim, following the constitution.

This witchhunt against anyone daring to say that a government uses illegal methods violating international law, is just the bullying reaction of a bunch of criminals caught in the act, red-handed, and has not much to do with military secrets. "Retaliatory punishment" itself would also be illegal b.t.w..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/10/bradley-manning-military-code-lawyer?newsfeed=true

https://docs.google.com/a/firedoglake.com/file/d/0B_zC44SBaZPoQ2hLa21jNlM0WmM/edit?pli=1

:shifty:

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

08-16-12, 03:04 AM

Isn't it amazing how tolerant we become of the "West's" actions.

If Assange is residing in the British embassy in China, asking for asylum from the Chinese, and the Chinese say they are going to intercept him and even threaten to revoke the British embassy's diplomatic protect on short notice, it'll be considered an atrocity w/o debate.

antikristuseke

08-16-12, 03:10 AM

Objectivity is a rare thing, always has been.

TarJak

08-16-12, 03:53 AM

Skybird

08-16-12, 04:18 AM

I wonder how a national law made after international agreements over the status of embassies as sovereign foreign territory can find international acceptance. It is like Germany making a national law to raid Denmark by force. Such a law would mean - nothing.

I'm sorry, but entering an embassy without mutual consent of the owner indeed is an act of war. Britain would deserve a spanking if they try it, no matter their little law thing.

How are relations between Equador and Britain?

Yes, the thing stinks to heaven. The Swedish laws over rape in themselves already are a bit excentric, to put it mildly, but in case of Assange the whole case by a 90% chance has been constructed from A to Z. He may be an non-sympathetic character - he surely is -, and Americans may want to trade revenge on him, but if governments - including the American - would not betray their people so massively and routinely, then there would be not so much dirt under their carpets they would want to hide. The trouble is not so much Assange's publishing, but the trouble is those who created the dirt and ruined the carpet.

I stilll wonder where the outcry is, about what has leaked out. I mean there is enough stuff to fire high brass and topple governments, from atrocities against international law to secret plans violating everything a "democracy" stands for.
Instead it has become a man hunt trying to shoot the messenger :shifty:

You see - the destraction tactic was extremely successful then.

TarJak

08-16-12, 05:03 AM

Not wanting to claim Wikipedia as the most reliable source, it is in fact correct in this instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality," therefore, is often used in this broader sense when applied to diplomatic missions.
As the host country may not enter the representing country's embassy without permission, embassies are sometimes used by refugees escaping from either the host country or a third country. For example, North Korean nationals, who would be arrested and deported from China upon discovery, have sought sanctuary at various third-country embassies in China. Once inside the embassy, diplomatic channels can be used to solve the issue and send the refugees to another country. Notable violations of embassy extraterritoriality include repeated invasions of the British Embassy, Beijing (1967)[7], the Iran hostage crisis (1979***8211;1981) and the Japanese embassy hostage crisis at the ambassador's residence in Lima, Peru during 1996.

The piece of law in Britain was introduced to allow actions such as the Iran hostage crisis to be "legal" in Britain, whilst there would still be an international law case that could be brought, the likelyhood of that proceeding and being successful would be small and is certainly no protection for the Ecuadorian embassy in this case.

Penguin

08-16-12, 05:16 AM

I stilll wonder where the outcry is, about what has leaked out. I mean there is enough stuff to fire high brass and topple governments, from atrocities against international law to secret plans violating everything a "democracy" stands for.
Instead it has become a man hunt trying to shoot the messenger :shifty:

You know about our beautiful word "Nestbeschmutzer". I think it was Dieter Hildebrand who said: "In Deutschland zeigt man mit dem Finger nicht auf denjenigen der das Nest beschmutzt, sondern auf den der darauf aufmerksam macht" :-? - guess this goes not only for Germany

(Rough translation: In Germany people don't point their finger at the one who crapped into the nest, but at the one who mentions it.)

Jimbuna

08-16-12, 05:27 AM

"Under British law we can give them a week's notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," a Foreign Office spokesman said.

The most likely outcome I would have thought.

Skybird

08-16-12, 05:52 AM

Not wanting to claim Wikipedia as the most reliable source, it is in fact correct in this instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality

The piece of law in Britain was introduced to allow actions such as the Iran hostage crisis to be "legal" in Britain, whilst there would still be an international law case that could be brought, the likelyhood of that proceeding and being successful would be small and is certainly no protection for the Ecuadorian embassy in this case.

The Wikipedia entry says that "the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country."

That's what it is about.

Violate the embassy's status without Equador's permission, and this effectively ends the basis of needed trustworthiness in any diplomatic relations worth the name. If I were Equador, I would retaliate againmst this hosdtile action by the same standards. Get my peoplke out of Britain immediately. When they are safe, end diplomatic relations and arrest British diplomatic staff in Equador, all that I can get. And leave it like that until Britain accepts to return to internationally accepted standards of action and behviour and exchnages their people against Assange.

Why sticking to the rules oneself if the other side breaks them for its own "advantage"?

Jimbuna

08-16-12, 06:09 AM

end diplomatic relations and arrest British diplomatic staff in Equador, all that I can get

You jest....surely?

Oberon

08-16-12, 06:19 AM

You jest....surely?

If we decide to play hardball, it would be naive of us to expect the other side to not do so.

However, I doubt it will come to that. After all, even if Assange does get asylum, he can't live out the rest of his life in the Ecuadorian embassy, he's got to leave it some time...and that's when he'll be arrested. Unless Ecuador can fathom out a plan to get him out of the country, I guess there's always the option of putting him in a diplomatic bag, it's been done before.

But yeah, this is just hot air, I doubt we'd be as stupid as to storm the Ecuadorian embassy, not unless this guy has the codes to our nuclear missiles or something! :haha: If we do go down the route of revoking the embassy then it'll take weeks, and be very messy. Better to just wait it out...

Skybird

08-16-12, 06:31 AM

You jest....surely?

No. Slap me once, I slap you twice. Kick me twice, I kick you three times. Beat me three times and get four in return. Well, that's me.

In principle, what the UK threatens to do at the Ecuadorian embassy equals what the Iranians did at the US embassy. I know that some may not want to hear that, but that'S how it is. It cannot be that a state claims the right to nullify international rules for embassies by making a national law, and then break the rules on that ground. That is as if China would make a law that territorial waters of China no longer are the internationally accepted 6 or 11 miles or how much it was, but now 60 miles. Or as I said: Germany makes a law that allows German police to raid Danish homes and territories. Who would accept to let the Germans and Chinese get away with that?

If Britian decides to play tough and illegal because it is opportune to do so, I would confront it on the same grounds - and then plus some more.

Oberon however probably is right. This is a waiting game.

TarJak

08-16-12, 07:06 AM

CaptainHaplo

08-16-12, 07:24 AM

While the Brits may be able to claim that the 1987 law provides them legal authority, it still violates international agreements and treaties. Its fairly certain that the Brits won't risk the backlash.

They will wait this out - sooner or later he will be outside the embassy, and when he is they will pop him then. As in arrest - not kill. Just to be clear.

Oberon

08-16-12, 07:27 AM

As in arrest - not kill. Just to be clear.

That is, providing, no-one else gets to him first...

http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/121/dec60787d51a43a5abe2ab951a9ad2e0/l.jpg

Not likely though, given how much media attention is on him, but still...

Kongo Otto

08-16-12, 07:54 AM

From what I've read the UK can use the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46) to legally enter the embassy and arrest Assange.

Whether they will or not is debatable. Whether Ecuador can move him out of the UK without him getting arrested on the way is also debatable.

The whole thing stinks and has done from the start. Even the Swedish sexual assault allegations are a bit suss.

It does make interesting watching to see the machinations though.

The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46) would work in this case.
All the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Acts (1964, 1968, 1987) are only valid for Diplomatic and Consular Staff, Properties etc.
Assange isn't a member of the Equadorian Diplomatic Staff so the UK's Diplomatic and Consular Acts do not apply on him.
On the other side, there is no real need to storm an Embassy just for such a creep like Assange, he has not committed any crimes in the UK and is just a Person who should be expelled from the UK to Sweden to stand trial for a Sexual assault charge.
As he has no Diplomatic immunity, the UK just need to wait until he sticks out his head.
Really guys is anybody taking comments like "the British government had threatened to raid its embassy in London if Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was not handed over" really serious, especially when such claims came from the Equadorian President.
C'mon guys really.

Ah and has anybody of you ever thought about the possibility that the Sexual Assault Charges in Sweden are true and not part of a big conspiracy theory?
Hmm what if that guy is just another egomaniac who means just because he has a "Name and reputation" he can do what ever he wants?
Surely would not fit the picture of "the shining light" he has gained in the hearts of some people.
But of course it must be an US-UK Conspiracy, just because it's so easy to negate the possibility that this guy despite his possible merits isn't just more than a Sex Offender with an Internet reputation.

Oberon

08-16-12, 07:55 AM

Either way, Ecuador has granted him asylum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492

Now we wait.

STEED

08-16-12, 08:04 AM

Don't say your going to do it, do it!

Man we look like a load of * to the rest of the world now for coming out with that tripe. And now he has won.

BossMark

08-16-12, 08:10 AM

Go in arrest him sod the consistencies he should be brought justice and pay for his crimes :yep:

Oberon

08-16-12, 08:12 AM

Yeah, arrest him, make us look like North Korea or China! :yep::yeah:

CaptainHaplo

08-16-12, 08:14 AM

This is a sad situation because I don't doubt that the British government rattled its saber a little to try to get Ecuador to move. It backfired.

The little rat isn't worth this much attention though. Just keep the place under watch, check every vehicle leaving, then snatch him when he moves.

STEED

08-16-12, 08:15 AM

Yeah, arrest him, make us look like North Korea or China! :yep::yeah:

Who cares...I would go further, arrest him and send him to America. :D

Oberon

08-16-12, 08:20 AM

Who cares...I would go further, arrest him and send him to America. :D

Well, that's fair enough Steed. I'd just be careful what you say though, lest you find yourself in a nice room at her majestys leisure for creating dissent against the government. Since we're going down that path. :03:

STEED

08-16-12, 08:24 AM

Well, that's fair enough Steed. I'd just be careful what you say though, lest you find yourself in a nice room at her majestys leisure for creating dissent against the government. Since we're going down that path. :03:

Oberon old bean I've been putting the boot in on those Tory Toffs and their lap dog liberals for a few years now. :har:

David Cameron is the worst Prime Minister ever! Do you hear me Cameron sunning yourself up in Spain while the UK goes down the plug hole?

Skybird

08-16-12, 08:24 AM

The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46) would work in this case.

Which internationally has questionable lehgal status, is not confirmed by mutual international agreements or is not verified by international treaties, and in effect means nothing. It just compares to what I said. Unilaterally claiming the right to raid a neighbour's territory, or to unilaterally abandon international treaties on national waters and expand the boundaries as one wants.

The rest of the world is not a British province as if it would need to obey a exlcusively national law of Britain.

All the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Acts (1964, 1968, 1987) are only valid for Diplomatic and Consular Staff, Properties etc. [quote]

But the sphere, the place, the space is.

[quote]Assange isn't a member of the Equadorian Diplomatic Staff so the UK's Diplomatic and Consular Acts do not apply on him.
But they do apply to the space he is in.

On the other side, there is no real need to storm an Embassy just for such a creep like Assange, he has not committed any crimes in the UK and is just a Person who should be expelled from the UK to Sweden to stand trial for a Sexual assault charge.
No, the tamtam is becasue the Swedes claim they just want to interrogate him. This they could have had the cheap way already, by agreeing to his offer to get interrogated in a neutral place. Which would not even have been a precedent. They did not want that, because interrogation is the last of their concerns. They want him in their fangs, so to speak.

As he has no Diplomatic immunity, the UK just need to wait until he sticks out his head.
Yes, if he does. It'S a waiting game.

Have you ever thought about the possibility that the Sexual Assault Charges in Sweden are true and not part of a big conspiracy theory?
Yes, and found the whole story to be very susppicious and thin, but smelly to the max, with the reputation of the Swedish "victims" and "witnesses" being questionable and their charges being dubious at best. And do some research on the Swedish laws regarding rape. It is hilarious, really, for what a man can get chraged for rape in Sweden. If the women just claism that after sex she felt uncomfrotable, this already cna trigger a police exmaination if she files it. I did not believe it when I first read that in a German magazine when the story was hot. But I got first-hand confirmation for it since then.

Hmm what if that guy is just another egomaniac who means just because he has a "Name and reputation" he can do what ever he wants?
Surely would not fit the picture of "the shining light" he has gained in the hearts of some people.
He IS a self-centred egomaniac and attention-craving character, no doubt. I do noit like him one bit, and many of his former comrades testify that by chraracter he behaved like a tyrant. But that is no excuse for this witch-hunt.

Assange has all reason to fear revenge by the US. He ripped some of their masks of theor faces. And that is somethign that the criminal breed that political leaders are inside and outside the US and in all the world, will never forget and never forgive. They have an genetically inbred right to remain unrevealed with their misdeeds, lies, betrayals and violations, you see.

At least they think so. I disagree, and that is the only reason why I supported wikileaks. Sympathy for Assange has nothing to do with it. Heck, I cannot stand him, by his behavior and appearance and eyes he is extremely unsympathetic to me.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

08-16-12, 08:25 AM

The argument the Poms have in their favour is that their law can override their compliance with the Vienna convention. The issue is that the argument will always take place after the fact by which time Assange is banged up and on his way to Sweden. Ecuador can cry all they want in The Hague, but that argument will take a long time and Assange's arrest and extradition will have been long gone by the time it is finished.

And what would the likely result be? Ecuador and Britain dissolve diplomatic relations for a while and then in a few years patch things over and forget it ever happened. Britain may get stung with a damages bill, but the appeals on that would take years as well. Right or wrong the UK law gives them the ability to do what they want within their own borders, including walking into the Ecuadorian embassy with a weeks notice.

I'm not sure it will take that long. No International Court will allow local legislation to brutally override the letter or (even if the letter can somehow be twisted to allow the action) the essence of such a fundamental treaty as one that governs diplomatic relationships. They will probably ignore all niceties, ignore any motions by the Brits, hand down a judgment by the end of the week and strike down all appeals because it is too hazardous to let this precedent stand even momentarily.

BossMark

08-16-12, 08:38 AM

Well, that's fair enough Steed. I'd just be careful what you say though, lest you find yourself in a nice room at her majestys leisure for creating dissent against the government. Since we're going down that path. :03:
Get arrested for telling the truth about the worst government in history, impossible other wise me and STEED would have been locked up years ago:har::haha:

STEED

08-16-12, 08:42 AM

Get arrested for telling the truth about the worst government in history, impossible other wise me and STEED would have been locked up years ago:har::haha:

Right on Bro...Free the Prison Two. :haha:

Hang on we're still free... :har: :har:

Skybird

08-16-12, 08:45 AM

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (link) (http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf)

Article 22

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.

2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.

3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

Britain ratified this convention, like 186 other countries also did.

Either you play by the rules, or you play not by the rules. Just to sometimes do, and when it is opportune: sometimes not - that is what renders you unpredictable to the max.

It makes maintaining diplomatic relations pointless.

For Ecuador, violating the embassy in London in principle is a justification to declare a state of war. Whether they would go that far I doubt, but that is how it is.

Oberon

08-16-12, 08:46 AM

Get arrested for telling the truth about the worst government in history, impossible other wise me and STEED would have been locked up years ago:har::haha:

Go down the road that Steed proposed and it would be a real possibility. Once you take a step on that road, there's no turning back.

Ducimus

08-16-12, 10:52 AM

I just have to post this link for fun. :O:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXNUaSjXRY

Oberon

08-16-12, 11:03 AM

Joss Ackland sounds like Palpatine in that clip :haha:

Palpatine: "And now, witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational Diplomatic Immunity..."

Vader: "It's just been revoked" *throws Palpatine down the pit*

TLAM Strike

08-16-12, 11:17 AM

The sad part is that given the state of the British military they would not be able to prosecute a war against Ecuador without the help of us... :O:

Oberon

08-16-12, 12:23 PM

The sad part is that given the state of the British military they would not be able to prosecute a war against Ecuador without the help of us... :O:

We wouldn't even need to attack Ecuador, we'd just 'discover' vast oil reserves in the region and sit back and let you do it for us. :yep::O:

eddie

08-16-12, 12:50 PM

I told you he would never make the airport!:haha:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/16/13311382-uk-refuses-wikileaks-assange-safe-passage-to-ecuador?lite&__utma=238145375.98762373.1344755030.1345135250.13 45139189.17&__utmb=238145375.2.10.1345139189&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1345139189.17.14.utmcsr=msn.com|u tmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Cworld%20ne ws=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hos tname=www.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20C ontent=Internal%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=31736829

Hottentot

08-16-12, 01:06 PM

We wouldn't even need to attack Ecuador, we'd just 'discover' vast oil reserves in the region and sit back and let you do it for us. :yep::O:

"So are you sure burying this barrel of oil in the ground is enough?"
"Dig faster!"

Catfish

08-16-12, 02:14 PM

Hmm i like fun, but frankly i find most reactions here not funny at all, let alone that illegal douchebags, having committed crimes against the law of the nations, come out unscathed and lead this witchhunt.
Remember no one would know e.g. about drone attacks, without Wikileaks.

I wonder if those bigmouths could sleep better, if they didn't know what their government did and does, in their name ?
Better not know about it and kill all who make those crimes public ? Really ? Is that the new international freedom and democracy ?

Most people in the US get angry when anyone doubts constitutional rights like the right to bear arms, but if their own government breaks the constitution continually they do not want to know.

No one will later be able to say "we did not know about it".

Tribesman

08-16-12, 02:38 PM

The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46) would work in this case.

It wouldn't work in this case Otto.
The provisions in that Act only cover change of status by the Secretary of State if it is done in compliance with the relevant international law and treaties, which puts it back under the vienna conventions which means it can only do it with Equadors approval.

Britain really screwed up with its threatening letter.
What on earth were they thinking:doh:

Oberon

08-16-12, 02:52 PM

It could be a while before anything happens though, to be fair, there's the case of József Mindszenty who spent 15 years in the US embassy in Hungary, so Assange might just decide to sit it out, but to be honest, waiting until the limelight has passed doesn't strike me as Assanges MO, the guy is all about being IN the limelight as much and as long as possible. To be fair, his personal survival may depend on it, it's harder to have an accident when the worlds media is watching you...

XabbaRus

08-16-12, 03:23 PM

Assange is a c*ck

But looking into things Assange and the Ecuadorean president have been cozy for a while.

Anyway it is all hype and bluster. What I love is how the Ecuadorean government has said that the UK has threatened to "storm" the embassy.

Nowhere in any release from HMG have I seen the word "storm". Just reference to the 1987 law. Talk about blow out of proportion.

BTW EU human rights convention doesn't allow extradition of a person to a country where they might face the death penalty. I don't know if that only applies to EU citizens but on balance it would probably apply to anyone in the EU regardless of citizenship.

Great reading the comments on the BBC page...so many numb nuts there.

Jimbuna

08-16-12, 04:08 PM

Heard a few good comments on various tv news channels during the course of the evening:

A former diplomatic ambassador from Britain has stressed he wouldn't like to see our authorities enter the building after having stripped it of its diplomatic status because that would set a precedent for any other country to do likewise to our diplomats abroad in the future.

Another 'expert' states Ecuador simply need to give Assange Ecudorian citizenship, then make him an Information Attache based in their London embassy and with that position he would automatically have diplomatic immunity.

Finally....Assange has supposedly twittered he will step out of the embassy this Sunday afternoon to make a public statement. (The band played 'Believe It If You Like').

TarJak

08-16-12, 05:12 PM

I'm not sure it will take that long. No International Court will allow local legislation to brutally override the letter or (even if the letter can somehow be twisted to allow the action) the essence of such a fundamental treaty as one that governs diplomatic relationships. They will probably ignore all niceties, ignore any motions by the Brits, hand down a judgment by the end of the week and strike down all appeals because it is too hazardous to let this precedent stand even momentarily.

Have you seen the International Court of Law move fast on anything ever? They would need weeks or months to put the correct case together. And eve then what practical impact would it have? Britain can still do what it likes within its sovereign territory. Removing diplomatic status of a single embassy would be a matter between those two countries. The issue is that they have court judgements for extradition and neither Britain nor Sweden are threatening to harm Assange, so his claims of being endangered are still baseless other than his bleating about the US being able to get him from Sweden. Bollox to that, the US could get him from Britain if they wanted him that bad.

Ecuador has some options as pointed out in Jim's post above.

My point is that the actual actions taken can occur well before any arguments over the legality of them are concluded. I don't agree with the rightness or wrongness of the laws, just what the practical outcomes are likely to be.

If Assange does poke his head up on Sunday it will be interesting to see whether he actually has diplomatic immunity already. That would then make the whole argument moot and he gets on a plane to Ecuador and bye bye to Sweden, Britain and the US.

eddie

08-16-12, 05:25 PM

Let him go to Ecuador, who cares!! Once there, he won't be a headache for the UK anymore! Hopefully, he'll piss off someone from one of the drug cartels, then his so called immunity will mean nothing, and he'll simply disappear.

mog

08-17-12, 01:56 AM

I don't think the UK is going to go to the extreme of entering an embassy over a relatively minor issue such as a man's extradition to Sweden to face rape charges. Assange isn't a threat to the UK, he's just a pain in the arse that they could do without. Better the UK have to deal with him than Australia, I say.

Catfish

08-17-12, 02:16 AM

It is not a wise decision to go to Ecuador i think, the international behaviour of Ecuador may change with every new president and worldwide politics, also the ecuadorian president is not a sympathetic and reliable man. He sure likes to expose (?) the USA, and to express the new middle-american aplomb; so his intentions are clear (to instrumantalize Assange) and have nothing to do with HIS view on free journalism.

However seen from all sides, i ask myself why he does not go to Sweden, the case of the women accusing him was almost turned down when he decided to go to the UK ? And i do not think he would be killed in England, i do not even really think this would happen in the US - he is not a US citizen and the world would then really think about this special US democracy.
(/However as we saw with Bradley Manning, the US courts are willing to change laws according to the governments' or military's wishes .. :hmm2:
https://docs.google.com/a/firedoglake.com/file/d/0B_zC44SBaZPoQ2hLa21jNlM0WmM/edit?pli=1
First they tried to describe him as a suicidal psychotic (remember you have to destroy a man puiblicly, before the strike), then they tried to really make him crazy by that special pre-trial treatment.)

And A. may be an unsympathetic idi*t, but has anyone really talked to him, apart from all this phased media hype ? Never believe the media propaganda ! You should know how that works since the 14-18 war and Raemakers, don't you ?

Also he may be whatever, but he found out something backed up by real evidence - and now instead of being ashamed or outright be thrown out of office just of all those accused (again, with evidence!), are being allowed to organize a witchhunt, with the dumb masses as their mouthpiece ?

This is as if someone found out about the killing of people in concentration camps, and the whole world turned against the journalist who made that public.
Back then there was no internet and a lot less means of information. Now that we have all that, are we just as dumb or disinterested as the people back then ? This is so unbelievably primitive ! Where is the public outcry ?!

mog

08-17-12, 03:00 AM

Also he may be whatever, but he found out something backed up by real evidence - and now instead of being ashamed or outright be thrown out of office just of all those accused (again, with evidence!), are being allowed to organize a witchhunt, with the dumb masses as their mouthpiece ?

This is as if someone found out about the killing of people in concentration camps, and the whole world turned against the journalist who made that public.
Back then there was no internet and a lot less means of information. Now that we have all that, are we just as dumb or disinterested as the people back then ? This is so unbelievably primitive ! Where is the public outcry ?!

There wouldn't be a problem if Assange released only documents that were evidence of criminal behaviour on the part of US officials or military. That would be covered under whistleblower protection that all Western democracies have as far as I know. But he released thousands of documents that revealed US and other countries' state secrets with no such justification. This is just plain unexcused espionage. The man doesn't like governments keeping anything secret. Most people, on the other hand, understand that it is necessary.

XabbaRus

08-17-12, 03:19 AM

The thing is though I have no problem with people uncovering corruption etc, what gets me is Assange and people like him think they are holier than thou, above the law and have special privileges to do as they please. Kind of like some journalists in the UK who think they have a moral duty to f*ck someone over regardless of the consequences.

Like Jim said, they could make him an Ecuadorean citizen, give him a diplomatic position and then he can't be touched.

However I have been reading that Ecuador has some trade agreements with the USA on some 1300 products that is due for renewal at the end of the year. So we will see what happens. Could be that President Rafael Correa is showboating before elections..

mog

08-17-12, 03:24 AM

Like Jim said, they could make him an Ecuadorean citizen, give him a diplomatic position and then he can't be touched.
I read somewhere that the UK would have to accept his appointment as a diplomat, which they obviously won't do - so that may not be an option either.

TarJak

08-17-12, 03:32 AM

Skybird

08-17-12, 05:51 AM

However I have been reading that Ecuador has some trade agreements with the USA on some 1300 products that is due for renewal at the end of the year. So we will see what happens. Could be that President Rafael Correa is showboating before elections..
However, Ecuador also is part of the anti-US axis in Latin America, being close friend with Venezuela/Chavez, and maintaining good relations with left-leaning Brazil and Argentina. Plus he is up head-to-head with US-ally Colombia.

It is not a wise decision to go to Ecuador i think, the international behaviour of Ecuador may change with every new president and worldwide politics, also the ecuadorian president is not a sympathetic and reliable man.
They met before. However, Assange did not have many options to chosse from, and I think Ecuador indeed may have been a very good choice indeed, for the reasons I just metioned above.

Tchocky

08-17-12, 06:50 AM

Ecuador is spinning this as a reclamation of their national sovereignty, kind of a "you can't tell us we can't do it". I don't see how that lets you mess around with the judicial sovereignty of Sweden (in terms of sexual assault) and the UK (breaking bail - say what you will about the rape charges, there's a rock-solid arrest warrant for Mr Assange on this ground).

Ecuador's response seems to be a mix of lifting a middle finger to the US, and overreacting to that twerp in the UK FCO who mentioned revoking embassy status. Ecuador aren't doing anything out of protectiveness towards Assange - there is no possible method of bringing him to Ecuador and actually having to stand behind their promises.

What should happen is that Mr Assange should submit to the valid arrest warrant and be extradited to Sweden. Yes, this may be a front to bring him to the US. That's the risk you take when you distribute secret information.

Don't take this to seem like I disagree with Wikileaks' stated intent- I think they at least used to be a positive force, instead of the kneejerk anti-American propaganda mill they seem to be at the moment. You don't get automatic exemption from the law by blowing the whistle.

Skybird

08-17-12, 08:24 AM

If charges get constructed and persec utioon gets abused for political opportunism, than I see neither a moral nor other responsibility for the intended victim to behave stupid, play by such rules and hand itself over to get spanked.

There is no legal obligation whatever to submit to a conspiratory effort of enemies. It's more a question then of who is the stronger one.

If Assange somehow ends up living in Ecuador, his worries will not end. It is possible that the next thing happening is trying to kidnap him. Though that probably will not be the Swedes, but the Americans, then. He has an interesting life ahead, no matter how the things in London turn out.

He has delivered possibly the greatest, at least one of the greatest PR disasters to the US ever. A self-proclaimed superpower will not let him off the hook for that. Never.

Catfish

08-17-12, 10:23 AM

He has delivered possibly the greatest, at least one of the greatest PR disasters to the US ever.

Luckily enough the common man did not notice that, and has decided to harass the journalist instead of the Mafia.

A self-proclaimed superpower will not let him off the hook for that. Never.

Hey, have a bit more faith in our allies, democracy and constitutional state :D

Jimbuna

08-17-12, 12:25 PM

TBH I just think Assange wants to stay out of Sweden because he doesn't want to face potential charges there and appears willing to do anything to prevent that from happening. At the moment all he is wanted for is questioning, however we don't know how far the case will go.

As I said earlier whether the poms think it is advisable to go get him or not is debatable.

The UK government appear to be determined to adhere to their legal obligations on this matter, so as long as he is on British territory he is skating on extremely thin ice.

A little discussion with Ecuador around trade agreements should see an eventual shift in their attitude...unless the South American neighbourhood is prepared to make good any future shortfall.

I reckon Ecuador will eventually tire of Assange and all that will be left to do is devise a face saving end game for all parties.

In the meantime...anyone reckon he'll come out of the embassy on Sunday as he stated on Twitter?

Jimbuna

08-17-12, 12:37 PM

I've just had a thought.....Has anyone told Julian Assange that if he wants to escape the attentions of the MET police, he just needs to wrap himself in a blanket and hide in his own loft? :hmm2:

Fubar2Niner

08-17-12, 12:39 PM

I'm guessing he will, don't think Ecuador is into roast beef with yorkshires and all the trimmings :huh:

eddie

08-19-12, 11:10 AM

He speaks from the balcony! What a pompous a**!!:haha:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/19/13360956-assange-in-balcony-appeal-to-obama-release-leak-suspect-bradley-manning?lite

BossMark

08-19-12, 11:55 AM

He speaks from the balcony! What a pompous a**!!:haha:
When he does get arrested then he should "slip down the stairs a few times" :haha:

Sailor Steve

08-19-12, 01:45 PM

When he does get arrested then he should "slip down the stairs a few times" :haha:
That reminds me of an old Mafia joke: Honest, officer, it was suicide. He tied himself to a chair, shot himself and then jumped out the window.

Twice.

Jimbuna

08-19-12, 02:16 PM

I'm honestly not surprised...he didn't have any credibility left to lose anyway :smug:

Oberon

08-19-12, 02:31 PM

That reminds me of an old Mafia joke: Honest, officer, it was suicide. He tied himself to a chair, shot himself and then jumped out the window.

Twice.

How many South African policemen does it take to crack an egg?

None, it fell down the stairs...

Catfish

08-19-12, 02:52 PM

I'm honestly not surprised...he didn't have any credibility left to lose anyway :smug:

What the hell are you talking about ?

Jimbuna

08-19-12, 03:09 PM

What the hell are you talking about ?

Assange...credibility...lack of....

Blood_splat

08-19-12, 03:41 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvrLTBvWpd8 :arrgh!:

Catfish

08-19-12, 04:06 PM

Assange...credibility...lack of....

Where exactly did he lose it ?
Because he made a speech from a balcony ? Worse people have done that :hmm2:

Oberon

08-19-12, 04:17 PM

Where exactly did he lose it ?
Because he made a speech from a balcony ? Worse people have done that :hmm2:

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081130225915/uncyclopedia/images/e/e8/Python_Mr_Hilter.PNG

Skybird

08-19-12, 04:38 PM

This guy - just one of many examples one could quote - tops Assange easily regarding lack of credibility and comicality.

http://cdn.ph.upi.com/sv/upi/UPI-48431297786982/2011/1/a57b0587a89789e3f80ad94919124d54/Source-admits-he-lied-about-Iraqi-WMD-info.jpg

Tribesman

08-20-12, 01:36 AM

This guy - just one of many examples one could quote - tops Assange easily regarding lack of credibility and comicality.
Be fair, he has since said that he didn't know at the time that it was all just a pile of lies.
Though I think some people missed that later episode and still believes whole heartedly the nonsense that was told back then.

Jimbuna

08-20-12, 04:56 AM

Where exactly did he lose it ?
Because he made a speech from a balcony ? Worse people have done that :hmm2:

Of course there have been worse people, there are many bad people in this world both past and present.

One word immediately springs to mind.....Quisling.

Jimbuna

08-20-12, 04:59 AM

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081130225915/uncyclopedia/images/e/e8/Python_Mr_Hilter.PNG

LOL, had to laugh at the two guys behind him near the beginning of his diatribe...wonder what they were expecting to see when they were looking up at hearing the sound of a helicopter? :hmm2:

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/resources/images/979979/?type=articlePortraithttp://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2zACkiYpVW08TuvF5aCSzGS_eT-LByMPCjoImiTAIHqZGhWTVkwmtGaDhQw

:)

Catfish

08-20-12, 06:20 AM

@ Skybird: Powell was the only one of this criminal gang to stand up and openly admit that it was all lies.
I miss this kind oft statement from Bush, Cheney and a lot of others.
But then Powell certainly is a traitor you say, sure.

@Jimbuna: Don't let us fight for definitions, i apologize to have said WTH in the above post. I just think that just because the new modern phased-in media support the government, and try to make people think that Assange has "lost his credibility"/"is a rapist"/"is a traitor"/blahblahblah does not mean he has lost his credibility at all. The accused have lost it, with evidence.

Indeed this reaction proves that the right media is on an ordered witchhunt, maybe even hurrying ahead - still Assange stands to his actions, and thinking of the pressure i can only admire that, liking the man's attitude or not.

In this age of information there is no other but the hard way to make governments realize they will not get away unscathed if censoring freedom of speech, press, and violating international treaties including shooting civilians and torturing, and generally behaving like an elephant in a porcelain's store abroad. It is very sad to see this culture of denial just of all in the US.

Right now they again try to get away unscathed, want to sit it out and kill Assange instead.
Certainly, before you kill someone you have to discredit him, make him lose his credibility, at least in the eyes of the big masses - an attempt we just now witness.
What a nice representation of freedom and democracy :nope:

Skybird

08-20-12, 06:55 AM

Powell was just an example quickly on my mind. However, he was naive enough to believe the nonsense he was talking there, and his performance really looked hilarious even if taken for itself. That he followed Bush and accepted to deliver this stageact, does not speak for him. Also check his biography, and you see that he is not much different from the other usual high profile politicians well-interlinked in business lobbies and and cliques and Seilschaften in the background. I used to think not too bad of him - before he joined Bush's administration, after his UN show at the latest his reputation on my scale fell to almost zero, and when I took that as a reason to check a bit his background, his reputation fell even more, below zero and into the red numbers.

I put some trust into a volunteer for a political career, and I got punished immediately. Serves me right - I should have known better. To my defence I can honestely say that I make this mistake only every couple of years. Do not trust politicians - never.

STEED

08-20-12, 10:45 AM

Are it must be hard for him not able to nip out to the local Barbers judging by that nasty crude cut. :haha:

Jimbuna

08-20-12, 11:39 AM

@Jimbuna: Don't let us fight for definitions, i apologize to have said WTH in the above post.

I wasn't aware we were fighting....simply debating from different viewpoints.

No need to apologise either...name calling and or trading insults would be a different matter altogether.

You express yourself as you feel the need...I know I will/would.

No harm, no foul :cool:

BossMark

08-20-12, 01:42 PM

Are it must be hard for him not able to nip out to the local Barbers judging by that nasty crude cut. :haha:
Bet he had it cut like that to save time when he gets locked up :haha:

mapuc

08-20-12, 03:24 PM

Is UK going to...maybe not UK, but...

We have discussed the following topic in other threads

Argentina has repeatedly claimed the Falklands as their and in particular Brazil supports this claim.

It's like not just Ecuador in South America, that looks angry at England

What if the crisis between Ecuador and England deepens.

and Ecuador get massive support of its neighbors

Then I thought-
What if Argentina sees his chance to retake the islands
Due to the diplomatic crisis, none of the South American countries, is positive towards England so an attack on Argentina and its forces will indeed give Argentina strong support from the other countries in South America

I do not have much sense of politics-it was just a kind of brainstorming about England and South Americans and their sometimes diplomatic confusion.

Markus