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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Catfish
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  |
You see - the destraction tactic was extremely successful then.