Slashdot Mirror
UK Authorities Threaten To Storm Ecuadorian Embassy To Arrest Julian Assange
paulmac84 writes "According to the BBC, the UK have issued a threat to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy to arrest Julian Assange. Under the terms of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 the UK has the right to revoke the diplomatic immunity of any embassy on UK soil. Ecuador are due to announce their decision on Assange's asylum request on Thursday morning."
Because they are really bothered about that possible rape charge against him.
Impressive. I think this is the first time I've heard anyone threaten to storm an embassy. I haven't even seen the Chinese do this. Note to everyone: this is what happens if you threaten to thoroughly upend the balance of power, expose secrets everywhere, and generally fuck with people in power. If you do this, you better make sure you have an equally strong power backing you. Otherwise, you will spend the rest of your life in jail, regardless of whether you actually broke any laws.
On the upside, props to Assange. I don't think he saw this coming, but I do think that what he did was a service to the world.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Back to the real world.
The inviolability of an embassy is critically important to diplomatic relations. If British police set a precedent here, it will cause embassies around the world to militarize, causing tension. I hope it's just a hollow threat made by some idiot who doesn't understand the situation properly.
What would Aldous Huxley say about all this? It's interesting to look at what some said over half a century ago.
On 21 October 1949, Huxley wrote to George Orwell, author of Nineteen Eighty-Four, congratulating him on "how fine and how profoundly important the book is". In his letter to Orwell, he predicted:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience.
Yes, how very civilized of you, Britain. The "I'm right because I have more guns" position has made us Americans so many friends internationally. I'm sure diplomats and foreign dignitaries will be thrilled to hear that you're going to storm their embassies.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
UK: "Whaaaa! I didn't get my patsy, boo hoo hoo. Let's storm the embassy and feed him to the US Pentagon."
This should frighten the hell out of everyone. Perhaps citizen's arrests should made upon the any mention of the word "transparency" by bureaucrats. Do we really have to wait for Stratfor and other "Global Intelligence" agencies to crap their trousers before the population gets any insight into what they are funding?
When they grab Julian, they should grab Gary M. too, and burn them both at the stake for old times. Why hide their thirst for blood any longer?
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
The UK government has already stated that they will not let Assange leave the country, so he's stuck in that embassy anyway. There have been rumors of smuggling him to the airport in a diplomatic limo, or hiring him as a diplomat, but those are not practical and the UK could detain him once he left the embassy grounds. So why bother storming the embassy?
If by chance they do storm the embassy then it will be obvious that the US government stepped up the pressure and got impatient. Get the popcorn out, this could get interesting.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Is this a joke? Can the most civilized nation on earth sink to the level of the state criminals who stormed the American embassy in Iran?
I wouldn't say his crimes warrant a major diplomatic incident. Unless there's actually something to what he's been saying all along...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Note, by the way, that the legal basis for seizing him is an allegation of rape. The fact that he's publishing unflattering information about the internal workings of Western governments is *not* their stated reason for wanting him.
Here is the message that I've sent to David Cameron this evening,. If anyone else feels strongly about this and wishes to use my text, please feel free. You can reach him here.
Dear Mr Cameron,
I have read reports in the international press this evening, citing Ecuador's Foreign Minister, that the UK is considering entering the London Embassy of Ecuador without Ecuador's permission in order to arrest Mr Julian Assange, who is seeking refuge there.
I strongly urge the UK not to take this action, which would be a violation of Article 22 of the Vienna Convention. It would set an ugly precedent that would not be lost on other countries. Historically, the UK has valued the rule of law. When the UK contravenes international law, it sends a very unfortunate message to other countries who do not value the rule of law. That message is: "you, too, can ride roughshod over international law".
If the UK enters the Embassy of Ecuador without permission I predict that other countries will use this chilling precedent to do likewise, perhaps against a UK embassy.
Please seek a peaceful agreement with Ecuador.
An allegation of sexual impropriety which is usually punished by a term of a few weeks community service and seldom jail time.
It's a bit important to recognize this as well.
I find it interesting that the UK government is willing to, essentially, go diplomatically nuclear over what is supposedly just a standard extradition request involving rape accusations.
We have NOAA purchasing HP ammunition in large quantities.
DHS purchasing 450 mln rounds of HP, and then another 750mln rounds of ammo.
Now we see the SSA doing something similar.
http://www.infowars.com/social-security-administration-to-purchase-174-thousand-rounds-of-hollow-point-bullets/
Doesn't this qualify as 'stuff that matters'?
Do you trust your Democrat Overloards that much?
I think I'll be heading to Walmart myself to stock up.
.357 125 gr hollow points?
About the only thing that round is good for is shooting yourself in the foot.
What total and complete wimps.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
They didn't even storm the Libyan Embassy when a Police officer was murdered from the Embassy itself back in (you guessed it) 1984.
The British surrounded the Embassy for 11 days, after which the Libyans reciprocated - and that is the appropriate response. Perhaps with other LatAm countries in solidarity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
And yet, they happily allow Russian assassins and Libyan terrorists to leave??????
There have been rumors of smuggling him to the airport in a diplomatic limo, or hiring him as a diplomat, but those are not practical and the UK could detain him once he left the embassy grounds. So why bother storming the embassy?
A diplomat's vehicle is considered sovereign land because it can contain diplomatic wires. Most countries would consider removing anything, or any person, from a diplomat's vehicle an act of war, the same as if they'd broken into the embassy. Now they might not exchange bullets over the matter, but you can be assured that diplomatic relations between Britain and many other countries will be harmed considerably. If they do this, nobody will trust them with their embassies again... I mean, if they're willing to storm an embassy and in the process compromising the national security and highly classified diplomatic wires of another government, violating the treaties signed between the two governments, all to to capture a guy for revealing low-level intelligence of a wholly separate government... Well, Britain simply won't be trusted after that for a long time.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
People with diplomatic immunity can still be arrested. They just can't be prosecuted. The most that a host nation can do is expel them and send them out on the next flight home.
Case in point: Andrey Knyazev was arrested for drunk driving after causing a crash that killed a woman in Ottawa, Canada in 2001. He claimed diplomatic immunity, and returned home after Russia refused to lift immunity. He then stood trial in Russia, and was convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison. A *Russian* prison, mind you, not a comparatively cushy Canadian one.
Hmmm...somebody's neglected their history, but they do have the longest continuing corporation in history, and perhaps the oldest one in the Western Hemisphere, the City of London Corporation --- look it up sometime, a very, very interesting history, especially how they purchased the monarchy back circa 1700s (S.I.L.O. arrangement).
He didn't even do anything!! He owned a site which released documents that everyone had a RIGHT to see. Just because a document is classified doesn't mean the public shouldn't be aware. He shouldn't be arrested or in trouble, he should be thanked for releasing information that frankly is everyone's business.
“Today we have received from the United Kingdom an explicit threat in writing that they could assault our embassy in London if Ecuador does not hand over Julian Assange,” Mr. Patiño said, adding defiantly, “We are not a British colony.”
This will get messy.
Also I find it hilarious that the NY Times coverage says the UK threatens to "barge in to the embassy", you know like just rudely walking instead of the full on assault that they are really planning. NY Times may be liberal domestically but it's a CIA shill when it comes to international news.
Where is the World is Julian Assange? Only you can find him gumshoes!
- -= Napalm means serious BBQ =-
No matter if the guy has raped that Swedish girl or not, - that's not the main point, for that "rape story" has become an excuse for UK to take action on behalf of Uncle Sam/
By doing so, UK no longer honors its own sovereignty.
A sovereign nation is like a free, dignified person, an entity that takes up action to protect it/him/herself, and has the freedom to do whatever it/he/she wants to do.
United Kingdom, by threatening to storm the embassy of another nation, over a person whom we all know Uncle Sam wants, is no longer a nation which I respect - and I suspect I am not alone in not regarding UK as a dignified country no more.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Assange is bound to end up in the US in a secure facility where he will be denied effective legal representation and be tortured psychologically, if not physically.
The US is no longer the home of freedom. RIP.
We haven't seen anything like this since the Iranians invaded the American Embassy in Tehran.
"The British government has told Ecuadorian authorities it believes it can enter its embassy in London and arrest Assange. But any incursion by the Brits at the embassy would be ‘‘without modern precedent’’ and could end up before the international courts, according to an Australian law expert. Professor Donald Rothwell, from Australlian National University College of Law, said the government's stance shows just how serious the UK is about extraditing the WikiLeaks founder to Sweden. "The Ecuadorian Embassy enjoys protection under Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which precludes the United Kingdom authorities from entering the Embassy without consent. Assange has enjoyed the protection of the embassy since he sought asylum there on 19 June 2012. "If the United Kingdom revoked the Embassy’s diplomatic protection and entered the Embassy to arrest Assange, Ecuador could rightly view this as a significant violation of international law which may find its way before an international court.”
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/uk-police-raid-assanges-embassy-refuge-20120816-249pe.html
... then hand them over to Argentina. Then send the Brits a diplomatic cable: "Fuck me? Well fuck you too."
The real moral of this story is: Never cross a Clinton, or anything they may be in charge of.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The UK government has already stated that they will not let Assange leave the country, so he's stuck in that embassy anyway. There have been rumors of smuggling him to the airport in a diplomatic limo, or hiring him as a diplomat, but those are not practical and the UK could detain him once he left the embassy grounds.
Assange could always hold a get-me-the-hell-out-of-the-UK rally.
If he plans this well, he could get a couple of tens of thousands of people to show up. If they dress like him, they could also act as decoys. And if a successful escape doesn't look like it's going to work, he could always back out, and stay at the embassy.
Er, the term is diplomatic bag. If the diplomat's vehicle is designated as a diplomatic bag by the embassy, it gets all the protections of a diplomatic bag. It cannot be opened or examined. It has been used numerous times to smuggle people in and out. Though there are treaties that govern what can be send through diplomatic mail/bag, and they prohibit carrying undeclared humans in them. So if you can smuggle without the host country calling your on it, you are good.
I am afraid in this case though, UK is closely monitoring Ecuador's diplomatic mail, and would be willing to move in if they know Assange is in it.
That's exactly the point.
A law saying "the UK has the right to revoke the diplomatic immunity of any embassy on UK soil. " is self-cancelling. An embassy, by definition, is not on the host's soil, but its homeland's.
What's morally and ethically wrong with this picture????
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623
They say they are not about to raid the embassy.
Much like anything else involving Assange, it appears Assange's side is amping up the hype.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Note, by the way, that the legal basis for seizing him is an allegation of rape. The fact that he's publishing unflattering information about the internal workings of Western governments is *not* their stated reason for wanting him.
And Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury.
No one who's paying attention to the case, and isn't blinded by ideology, has any doubt whatsoever what the real motivation is.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
So basically he exchanged simple incarceration (having your movements restricted) to death by bunda.
There are a few misconceptions that crop up repeatedly. Keep mind though that IANAL.
The diplomat's vehicle isn't sovereign land of the sending country. In fact, neither is the embassy. The Ecuadorian embassy in the UK is still sovereign land of the UK, however, it is inviolable (Article 22 of the Vienna convention). Same article specifies that the vehicles can not be searched. But it's precisely this status of embassies - as opposed to them being sovereign land of the sending state as it's often believed - is, in my reading, what the UK uses to give itself the right to revoke unilaterally that status, under the act cited in the summary.
If the embassy has diplomatic vehicles parked within the premises and not across the street or elsewhere, Assange can get into one of those vehicles, with a diplomat, and drive somewhere, with the police not having the right to detain him. Problem for him is he'd have to get out at the airport or somewhere.
Another comment I saw repeated several times elsewhere is that Ecuador could grant Assange citizenship and diplomat status, making him immune. This is not so - the receiving nation must explicitly agree to acknowledge each member of the mission. Obviously Assange would never be acknowledged as a diplomat by the UK. From my understanding of international law, even if Assange was to become the President of Ecuador, he would still not be enjoying immunity as that applies on official visits of the head of state.
Anyway, his is getting interesting and rapidly heading somewhere. Ecuador is set to announce its decision on asylum in about 12 hours, the UK might be determined to act before then. If they do not, there might be drama around Assange trying to leave the UK. Unless, of course, he just stays holed up there indefinitely.
An invitation was even given by the Ecuadorian government to the Swedish prosecutors to come to their embassy and speak with Assange, and they refused to cooperate.
The UK is expecting Ecuador to back down and hand Assange over.
If they (the UK) were to actually storm the embassy they would be immediately putting their diplomats around the world at risk because they would have just shown how little they think of another country's embassy.
Have gnu, will travel.
all to to capture a guy for revealing low-level intelligence of a wholly separate government
No no no, this isn't about Wikileaks at all, remember. It's about capturing a guy who may have committed a misdemeanour in Sweden, whose police want to question him about the matter (hasn't been convicted, hasn't even been charged, plaintiffs have withdrawn their complaints).
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
At least not from the article linked.
Kissane says WikiLeaks supporters gathered there say five police have entered the building housing the embassy. However, it is unclear if they have entered the embassy itself.
Sounds like the embassy is a set of offices inside of a building. The police have simply entered the building housing the embassy.
A ten-thousand person civilian escort from the embassy to the airport would be quite impressive as well. Not to mention symbolic.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
They seem to have stepped in some Assange shyte and can't get the stench off themselves.
If they violate Ecuador's sovereignty by invading the embassy, Ecuador should expel all British government employees from their country at the very least.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They usually literally bag the person and declare it as diplomatic mail, during these moments. And one cannot prevent diplomatic mail from leaving the country. All of these governed by the Vienna convention.
Easily defeated without opening or examining the vehicle. Simply surround the vehicle as it leaves the embassy grounds with police cars. Then just drive really, really, really, really slowly. So slow that it would take a week to get to the airport. Switch out the cop cars as necessary but keep the embassy vehicle surrounded and controlled. If the embassy its country protest simply explain you are providing them with protection....that you have credible intelligence that they are at risk from terrorists. When their vehicle finally runs out of gas, wait them out. The person you are after will get out of the car eventually.
And I didn't pick up the franchise rights for Guy Fawkes masks when it became available. [Sigh].
Have gnu, will travel.
Libyan, not Iranian. The constable was shot by someone in the Lybian Embassy during a protest outside of the embassy gates. The Iranian Embassy incident involved hostages and the SAS going in to get them out.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The fact that he's publishing unflattering information about the internal workings of Western governments is *not* their stated reason for wanting him.
You're not suggesting that honesty should come into it, are you?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I watch with great amusement how many people here are willing to defend the sanctity of diplomatic embassies while cheering the man who publicly burned the sanctity of diplomatic communications. The sheer hypocrisy on this ought to be enough kick start fusion....
Ecuador is set to announce its decision on asylum in about 12 hours...
Ecuador has already announced their decision, they will grant asylum. If they were wavering, this idiotic ham handed diplomatic blunder surely tipped the balance.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
No, they haven't announced that decision. Apparently they decided a day or so ago (as indeed reported by multiple sources), but there's been no official statement from the government, despite journalists finding out off the record. In a situation as delicate as this, the distinction is important.
The source linked by the parent is misleading. The events are being live-tweeted by one James Albury. He has since clarified that:
I wouldnt describe it as a raid. The police entered side door peaceably. I dont think area they are in is sovereign Ecuadorian.
Just regular, everyday police. Not armed or anything and were apparently allowed in by Ecuadorian officials.
A: Assange is in some well-concealed way working with government agencies. After an almost unprecedented reception of media coverage in response to successful operations, Elite PR in effort to avoid breaching the threshold of public cognitive-dissonance, determines that Assange must be at some point incarcerated to prove that the King of the Hill isn't some sheep in bully's clothing, but is a bone-fide bully not to be F'd with. Assange then spends some time in a well-regulated prison environment to satiate a generation of tax-paying dullards. But eventually, he is released upon ground-breaking violations of international law by his captors who just F'd up. The sock-puppets and actors pretend to be outraged, frothing from jowly chops and uttering through trained faces words of rage. But in the end, the operative is set free due to the errors involved in his apprehension.
B: Achtung! Fascism has arrived and reserved a spot for you and your family in a Serco termination-chamber. Please be informed that your government has queued your number. You are advised to either self-terminate at the nearest eugenics pylon, or wait at your nearest Federal building for the next purge-wagon.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
If 'by a few weeks community service" you mean "up to four years in prison", yes.
What world do you live on where having sex with a sleeping person (let alone in a manner that you know they'd refuse, which they'd been refusing all night) is a community-service offence?
We're practicing our labials.
Hewlett-Packard makes ammunition? I thought they only made cheap printer ink and sold it in expensive half filled cartridges.
I wouldn't buy ammunition from HP though, it wouldn't work with your gun unless you bought a special chip, and then while the clip looks like it's full, the gun will tell you it's empty half way through so you have to go buy more ammo.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Well, Britain simply won't be trusted after that for a long time.
Neither trusted nor respected... then again, that horse likely left the barn a while ago.
People have tried to move people via diplomatic bags before. It's never worked, at least as far as is known (there's one suspected case from Egypt long ago, but it's not really certain). It failed with Mordechai Ben Masoud Louk, it failed with Umaru Dikko, etc. And it especially wouldn't work if you tried it on something as obviously in violation of the Vienna Convention as a car. The British have already made it quite clear that they plan to stop any vehicles leaving the embassy.
Embassies are not magic. Their immunity basically only extends as far as the host state is willing to tolerate them, because ultimately, the host state has all the cards, including the right to expel diplomats and close embassies altogether. The more the embassy tries to f*** with the laws of the host state and cheat the Vienna Convention, the less they tend to be tolerated. And Ecuador already has a less than stellar record with their diplomatic pouches (they got caught using them to smuggle cocaine to Italy once)
We're practicing our labials.
Embarrassing government secrets?
...Or you know, just arrest him as he exits the vehicle to enter the plane.
Or they could put him in a burlap sack, place a diplomatic seal over the opening and it is now legally untouchable. At that point, a diplomat and 2 guards (to do the actual lifting) could place him on a protected plane and leave the country. I don't think the U.K. wants to set a precedent for breaking other countries diplomatic pouches open.
It would not be the first time a person has been shipped in a diplomatic pouch.
It gets more interesting if he is hired as a courier and given a diplomatic pouch to carry back to Ecuador.
That was my point basically. Smuggling people works only when the host country is least expecting it. Right now, nope, nothing will work.
I think it is good idea that as many as possible, would send similar message. Even if it would not help, I think it would be important principal level and show that people around world are concerned.
Amnesty International has used mail campaigns to show that people around the world are following the fate of political prisoners and that they haven't been just forgotten.
The problem is not the diplomat's limo, but getting there. Equador doesn't have a private limo port that could be considered part of the embassy.
Because they are really bothered about that possible rape charge against him.
I think the more relevant thing is that the UK government is not really bothered by Ecuador.
None of the Latin America countries enjoy being reminded of their past colonial status, or the continuing attitude of the US and European imperialists, whether former or not. I imagine if Britain really were so stupid as to storm the Ecuadoran embassy, every single one of their Latin American embassies would be stormed by the people, with the police stepping aside.
There aren't many people anywhere in the world that see this as anything but the UK sucking up to the US. No civilized country has ever stormed an embassy that I can think of, other than the Iranian revolutionaries storming the US embassy, and that was in response to 25 years of living under the Shah who had been forced on them by the US. Does Britain really want to be the first modern civilized country to do something so outrageous, for a somewhat dubious rape charge, as the US's lapdog? I wouldn't be surprised to see the Conservative government fall to a vote of no confidence. I can't imagine too many UK citizens would think this a proper demonstration of national pride.
Infuriate left and right
If the UK initiates an act of war against another foreign power
The UK government has not threatened anything of the sort. What it has threatened to do is shutdown the embassy. It has the right to do this under UK law as does any country otherwise it would never be possible to break diplomatic ties. The US and other European governments have done this to middle eastern countries for example. It might well harm diplomatic links with Ecuador - effectively the UK government would be cutting diplomatic ties with them - but I doubt that diplomatic ties with Ecuador are considered particularly valuable to the UK. On the other hand neither does extraditing Assange.
During cold war, cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty stayed 15 years in US embassy in Budapest to escape communists. But even communists weren't so evil that they would have violated the Vienna Convention. I hope that UK doesn't prove to be even more evil than communists.
Who spends the night with a guy they don't want to have sex with that has already made advances earlier?
The whole case is ridiculous (including the retraction of the allegations by the so-called victims) and stinks of instigation. There is currently nobody to prosecute Assange anymore at this point besides the public prosecutors. The alleged victims won't witness (if their lawyers are half as smart as they should be) as they're no longer credible sources at this point, there are no witnesses and the crime is minor as in, every day there are probably people walking into a police office with those complaints and in most jurisdictions is not even considered a crime.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
And oil... ~$1Bn/month in oil exports to the US won't phase the US markets one bit... (as a matter of fact they already are, this tidbit of news is causing rising prices)
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
No, they haven't announced that decision. Apparently they decided a day or so ago (as indeed reported by multiple sources), but there's been no official statement from the government, despite journalists finding out off the record. In a situation as delicate as this, the distinction is important.
Probably not. After all, the distinction between "Ecuador claims the UK threatened" and "The UK threatened" seems to be lost on most people commenting here, and certainly on the submitter. If you read the actual letter from the UK nothing is said about "storming" anything. The only threat is that the embassy status can be revoked, at which point Assange can be arrested like any regular alleged criminal in any private residence.
mod'd informative?? really? what was informative about this guy, trolling, and yet telling others not to troll?
what information did he bring to the table? seriously. why mod him informative?
we get that you are a shill and you are taking the party line against julian. but if you have nothing to offer other than your hate, please take it elsewhere. maybe fox news has a forum more to your liking?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I know most are breaking it down to probable bullshit rape charges and Ecuador's sovereignty but the legal issue is dicer. If they had charged him with the US charges of revealing national secrets there might be a case for asylum. The problem is right or wrong they are charging him with rape. I've never heard asylum being given for rape other than statutory rape due to differences in laws. Asylum is normally given for political or religious persecution not to avoid prosecution on a criminal charge. Ecuador may not have a leg to stand on due to the 80s agreement. It's odd for a country to risk breaking ties with a powerful nation over a case like this. They don't want to be perceived as being bullied by a more powerful nation but technically they had no business getting involved. Rape charges aside he was out on conditional bail and he broke British law by seeking asylum. Like I say take emotion out of it and look at it from a legal standpoint and it's a pretty screwed mess. He's probably right they intend to hand him over to the US eventually but that's beside the point. He's risking the relationship between Ecuador and England to cover his own ass. In the end it's a futile exercise because Ecuador would have to risk breaking all ties with Brittan to even attempt to get him out of the country. The best he can hope for is to live out the rest of his life in the embassy and I doubt that's an option. If he leaves the police will grab him and even if he makes it to the airport there's no way they'll clear the flight. They aren't required by international law to allow a fugitive to leave the country even if he is with people representing Ecuador.
She did want to have sex with him - but only with protection. She dated her previous boyfriend for, what, 2 years or so? And never once slept with him without protection. It was "inconceivable to her", to quote him.
But even if she *had* slept in the same bed with him, even if they had already had unprotected sex, even if she had said "I love unprotected sex with you" - A Sleeping Person Cannot Consent, Period. That's rape.
Two UK courts found the charges credible. Who should I believe, them, who reviewed the evidence, or you?
We're practicing our labials.
Says wikipedia about the Saigon embassy: "The Americans and the refugees they flew out were generally allowed to leave without intervention from either the North or South Vietnamese. Pilots of helicopters heading to Tan Son Nhat were aware that PAVN anti-aircraft guns were tracking them, but they refrained from firing. The Hanoi leadership, reckoning that completion of the evacuation would lessen the risk of American intervention, had instructed Dng not to target the airlift itself."
The US abandoned the embassy, and only then did the North Vietnamese invade it. Their actions showed an acute awareness of it being off-limits. Whether they would have invaded it if it had not been abandoned is an alternate universe question.
There's one hell of a lot of tradition behind leaving embassies and ambassadors alone, stretching way back to the middle ages at least.
Infuriate left and right
Embassy cars are also inviolate. Stopping and searching embassy cars would be just as much an international insult as storming the embassy building. If they want their embassy cars in Latin America to be left alone, they better leave the Ecuadorian embassy cars alone. They are playing with fire.
Infuriate left and right
you continue to believe the women.
thing is, not all of us do; and we find the situation FAR from ordinary.
if this was about face-value, fine; but somehow, many of us don't quite agree that this was, at all, about 'rape'.
but rape sure makes an emotional appeal, doesn't it?
real rape is bad.
I don't think that this is what happened, though. sorry, but I just don't. and the way the countries are acting, its FAR too suspicious to be JUST a rape issue.
you don't threaten to enter another country's embassy over this.
sorry, but this last move shows that this is most certainly NOT a rape trial or charge.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to authorities and the people. Nothing conspiratorial about that.
Several years ago a Libyan "diplomat" shot and killed a British police officer and the diplomat was still allowed to leave the UK. Why didn't they storm the Libyan embassy then? Oh was oil involved
car yard to car to private airstrip with 1200 yards of concrete runway, straight onto a Gulfstream IV (about the smallest plane with the range to make it to Ecuador from pretty much any straightish stretch of road in Britain). The car yard is about the only part of the journey with real lift risk since only the Airboss has the authority to close an airfield and allow the police on site (the police can't just roll on and pull up in front of the plane!). Private charter passengers can pull right up onto the apron and take a dozen steps between car and plane.
This is why most international airports have their own contingents of police on site from local forces, pretty much all of whom nowadays are armed. No so private airfields. The other problem is that most small airfields don't store Jet-A so unless JA is very unlucky he won't run out of fuel halfway across the Atlanntic because the crew will have brimmed the tanks before taking off from [wherever].
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
If you read the actual letter from the UK nothing is said about "storming" anything. The only threat is that the embassy status can be revoked, at which point Assange can be arrested like any regular alleged criminal in any private residence.
Maybe. But, how are they going to get into the 'private residence' to arrest him without first 'storming' in?
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/24736941 Taken from http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2012/08/will-brits-storm-embassy-for-assange.html.
Plus at some point he'd have to get from the automobile to an airplane, which would expose him to arrest, and even if he got to the airplane, it wouldn't be given clearance to take off. He's stuck.
First problem would be solved by parking the auto in the plane; Ecuador has C-130s (first cargo aircraft I looked up). Alternatively, place Assange in an intermodal shipping container designated as a diplomatic pouch, destined for air/sea transport.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "RAPE". Purely political and it continues to show just how much of a farce our systems are. Rich bankers are untouchable but if you mess with the powerful no law will protect you.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Bill Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob when a bunch of Republicans weren't getting any. Perjury was the excuse, not the reason.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The US has extradition treaties with the UK, so why would he have to be extradited to Sweden before he can be extradited to the US, if that's what this is really all about? It doesn't make any sense to me.
1) The OK believes what has been in the press, which is that Ecuador has already decided to grant asylum. UK is now just waiting for the announcement.
2) The UK sent the letter before the announcement was made so that when it is made, they can immediately go in, and they can say they gave advance notice, and maybe they were hoping that little bit of extra pressure would cause Ecuador to reconsider.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
No no no, this isn't about Wikileaks at all, remember. It's about capturing a guy who may have committed a misdemeanour in Sweden, whose police want to question him about the matter (hasn't been convicted, hasn't even been charged, plaintiffs have withdrawn their complaints).
That's not why he's seeking asylum. It's because the UK has stated they will extradite him to Sweden, and Sweden has indicated they will extradite him to the US, and the US has indicated they intend to execute him or hold him in Guantanamo Bay indefinately, depending on who wins the election this November.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
That ammo's already been shot off. Just empty shell casings now.
Flying isn't the only way off Monkey Island.
Drive all the way to the chunnel and drive all the way onto the train. Doesn't have to leave the car at all.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork
and here ...
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/alburyj
No, but it will be bothered and a lot by the diplomatic repercussions. South America is not exactly in love with US/UK at the moment...
The chunnel connects on the other side to France?
France, where none of the diplomatic officials have any type of standing whatsoever?
And Britain does have a standing agreement with neighboring nations such as France, that allows France to capture anyone fleeing and evading capture from UK?
It takes enough time to drive from the Ecuadorian embassy to the chunnel that the two governments could coordinate so French police would be standing ready at the other side of the chunnel?
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
I think this isn't about any of that anymore. Now, this is about UK trying to save face with US. They are trying to tell little ol' Ecuador not to fuck with the UK. Damn if they lose all respect and diplomatic clout with the rest of the world in the process. In other words, there's someone with power in the UK. This is all about his ego.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
And it gives Ecuador a chance to stick it to the US, UK, and Sweden all at the same time!
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Problem for him is he'd have to get out at the airport or somewhere.
Chunnel?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"Tens of thousands" sounds over-optimistic. Tens of hundreds maybe... this is a news item that most people have forgotten about by now, or never cared about at all in the first place, or they were on the government's side. It's not the Olympics, or a Coldplay concert.
Now, even a few hundred people might still be useful for obfuscating Assange's exit. However, the English police would know about the rally also, since the date would be planned in advance and the general public would know about it. So they'd just set up a "quarantine zone" of roadblocks and not let anyone into the space around the embassy (unless they could prove they had business there). If protest-dismantling works like it does in the US, they'll just say "Oh, this group didn't have a permit" and then either refuse to issue a permit, or issue it for another location entirely, on the other side of town.
While storming the embassy would be an immediate defeat for Assange
Look, if I were to be granting asylum for somebody in a known hostile country, I'd be sure to smuggle him out before making the public announcement.
Do we actually know he's still there?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Quite so. From London, even.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Ferry to Sweden then perhaps?
oh wait......
But officially the reason the UK is willing to storm the embassy isn't over wikileaks, or due to US pressure. Officially they're doing this because he's wanted for questioning in Sweden. My point was that the drastic measures Britain is willing to take give away the lie - it's obviously not about what they claim it is.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Situation 6) Ecuador grants Assange asylum, the UK don't carry through their threat of storming the embassy and the situation remains as a stand-off with Assange holed up in the embassy ... until 2013 when an Australian election is due. Assange has already publicly stated that he is considering running for election to the senate next year. He does and is elected easily (as he would need only 14.3% of the population of whatever state he stands in to vote for him - probably Victoria). This escalates the situation to a much higher level - the UK/US/Sweden would now be looking at arresting an elected Australian politician.
For those talking of "precedent," here's a little history lesson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
Note that the law cited in TFSummary was passed just three years later, in response to this incident. The British seem determined not to let extraterritoriality get abused.
Still no. Under the courts definition, blow jobs did not count as "sexual relations", only intercourse. Sad day for the wingnuts.
And, nevermind that the impeachment was made even more of a joke by the abuses of Clinton's warmongering successors.
... which are necessary to understand the situation.
Ecuador has published the precise text of the letter. The key part is: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy." The UK has not denied this letter.
The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 was a reaction to the terrorist incident at the Lybian embassy in London in 1984. It's not easy to see how it is relevant from reading its text, but it does allow the UK to revoke diplomatic status of a (then former) embassy - to the extent that it is permitted by international law.
Embassies are not extraterritorial. They are just inviolable - as long as they are embassies. Diplomats are not immune from being arrested (e.g. for drunk driving), just from prosecution. Diplomatic cars are not immune from being stopped by police, just from being searched.
The Ecuadorian embassy in London is not a building but a flat on the ground floor of a larger building. Just google for images. The police can therefore legitimately enter the building (and has done so) without violating international law. This also makes it very hard to smuggle Assange out of the embassy, though maybe revocation of embassy status as necessary for storming the embassy, resulting in unsearchable relocation vans, would make this feasible. Also, it looks as if the physical conditions should make the prolonged presence of Assange in the embassy a nuisance in practical terms.
Sweden has not indicated it will extradite him! What is your source for that claim?! His supporters claim this, but the UK is far more likely to do so.
Sweden and every other European country is obligated by human rights laws to refrain from extraditing to the US [or any other country] if there's even the possibility of the death penalty. The same applies if they cannot be guaranteed basic human rights as defined by the ECHR.
In several cases Scandinavian countries have refused to extradite, American or native citizens, to the US on grounds such as the horrible prison conditions in the US. You draw a very strange picture of Sweden, but do you actually know it? Having studied law in this region, and knowing the European Human Rights Convention acts as a guarantee in both Sweden and the UK I fail to see the validity of your point.
Have a look at some of the wonderful articles that rank above national European court systems. If the UK or Sweden wanted to extradite, Assange could have them overruled by the European Court of Human Rights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_6_-_fair_trial
US + UK + Europe, who have always backed the EU nations against South American ones, would stomp all over South America in any kind of conflict, trade, diplomatic or even outright war.
South America is a hodge-podge of second and third world pseudo-democracies highly dependent upon the first world.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
routinely terrorizes and occasionally disappears journalists and those who speak out against the government.
[Citation needed]
The vast majority of the population of South America are Spanish and Portugese. In other words they*are* the colonists.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
If the U.K. violates diplomatic protocol, why should Ecuador honor it?
As wrong as it might be, Correa could order the British diplomatic staff to be, essentially, the hostages of Ecuador until he so sees fit as to let them leave. That would leave the U.K. in a very vulnerable position that the press and public would very negatively react towards. The headlines would scream, "U.K. Diplomacy Violation Results in Hostage Crisis" and putting British citizens at risk over a questioning for a "rape case" would probably not go over well with most people.
Of course, that carries risks and bad juju for Ecuador as well and I doubt they would do it, but it would certainly be one way to even the playing field and give the U.K. a very bad black eye where they would otherwise be indefatigable.
UK worse than nazi germany?
I won't say UK is worse than Nazi Germany. What I will say is, UK is almost as bad as the Nazis, and if they do carry out the embassy storming exercise, I'll regard the present UK government worse than that of the Nazi
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
No, it doesn't qualify as "stuff that matters". If you look up the total number of employees in these agencies, you'll quickly realize that it's just a bulk ammo purchase that's going to last them perhaps a year in training sessions. In other words, exactly what any money conscious gun owner does, only scaled up to department level.
You seem to forget one thing -
After they stormed the embassy, Mr. Assange will no longer a human being
He will be dead
They could plant weapons in his hand and then declare they have eliminated a "terrorist"
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Rich bankers are untouchable but if you mess with the powerful no law will protect you.
Just in case you do not know
LAWS ARE MADE TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE SUPER RICH
I don't care which country you are from
I don't care whether the country you are staying is democratic, or not
The LAWS of the land you are in, were written by experts who worked for the super rich
The laws written were written such ways that the interests of the super rich will always be protected
No matter it's the "justice system", or "judiciary", whatever fancy name they use, the entire system is structured to serve the super rich
That is all to it
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
"And Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury."
About getting a blow job. I don't know about you but admitting to getting a blow job by someone other than his wife on national tv where his wife will see it... Well, how about you being in that situation with Bill Clintons history. Remember you only have to face the public and congress during the daytime, her you have face after the lights go out. Let's not forget John Bobbit got his dick wacked off while he was sleeping by his wife just a couple of years before... Happy dreams.... Besides we all know the entire fiasco(along with the savings and loan BS, independent prosecutor) was about keeping the president powerless, kind of like the current political fiascos(debt, guns, etc) between congress(house largely) and the president.
PS. Forget citation, you're on the internet, lo
...ok it up yourself. Damn slashdot pages and laptop pads.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not sure how getting to Ecuador helps Assange.
Haven't you realized it yet?
Ecuador already helped Assange and Wikileaks by provoking the idiotic UK foreign minister into airing that uber idiotic "embassy storming" threat out loud
This has put the UK government (and the entire UK, as a country) in a very, VERY bad light
The more UK is trying to suck up to Uncle Sam, the more UK is looking like a 4th-rate banana republic
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Wow. Until now I was on the edge on whether Assange really faced extradiction to the USA and lots and lots of pain coming his way there. Now I am convinced that he was right all along. You don't storm embassies and revoke diplomatic immunity for two counts of non-consensual intercourse.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It's interesting but after reading an article about `secret' diplomacy and how important it is for the relationships between nation states, I rather think that shutting down Wikileaks is a good thing. Assange himself seems to me to be a vain man on an ego trip, not unlike the Australian who swam into the Thames here in the UK to disrupt the University boat race. It's all about them, isn't it.
Britain is threatening an act of war because some hippie embarrassed them and made them look like douche-nozzles. I've never heard anything so sinister that's also so petty.
UK is looking more and more like the Ãoeber dunce
I guess we have to thank none other than Uncle Sam
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The threw out the conservatives when the Brits got fed up with Tatcherism and they got Tony Blair. Then they threw labour out and they got the conservatives back with the lib-dems betraying every single election promise. The lib-dems got spanked for that in the next minor election and NOTHING CHANGED.
There are no parties left.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Oh really? You are talking about the revolution or the recent election. Both changed the heads but the same people remained in power. Just see the stance on copyright. Totally unpopular with the government but except for the pirate parties, every political party is supporting it in practice (not of course in election promises but they aren't worth the paper they are written on).
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The gloves have come off guys, the coalition of the willing are now willing to violate any number of international laws to satisfy their ...
I beg to differ if you think that the whole thing is out of control
It's part and parcel of the whole thing -
What international laws?
What international conventions?
To USA and its lackeys, all things humankind be damned, as long as they get to make their profit
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The Daily Mail is NOT a respectable newspaper, it is a sensationalist rag read by the rednecks, tokkies (dutch rednecks) or whatever the degenerates are called in your area of the world.
Taking any story in the daily whine for fact is like believing anything you read in a celebrity gossip magazine. Many of which do more fact checking.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Argentina has a case to settle with the Brits, who do you think they might support in a conflict?
And England with its economy down the drain certainly doesn't want a boycott against it. Boycotts always benefit someone. Lets say British banks are boycotted from South America. That will benefit South American banks, who will be very appreciative to any South American politicians that initiated such a boycott.
People who think the world always continues just as it was before forgot that the Greeks no longer are the center of civilization and where ever it is now, it sure as hell isn't in Africa. Things change and they always catch the world by surprise.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I've already commented in this thread, I can't mod
Please mod parent up, for it is one of the better messages
Thanks in advance !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
But civilized?
But the reason I am not kicking your arse over your comment is that the reality is worse.
No-one cares. This place has descended into total apathy.
While you have outlined the consequence, I like to find out the cause
Whose fault is it, then?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
We have two main parties who are now extremely similar in politics and a third "half" who lacks spine and a mismash of tiny parties who will never get represenation under our current voting system.
Coupled with the fact that the majority of the people are either apathetic (because they believe the above is insoluble) or just uninformed (and do not care to be), there is absolutely no chance of anything changing in this country.
Frankly I'm sadden by your defeatist attitude
You're waving your white flag even before trying
How do you know that there aren't others who are as fed up as you and wanting the change?
Stop being a follower
Be a leader, for a change !!
Start organizing
Pressing flesh, hugging babies, if that's the cost to change
Start doing something than just throwing your hands up and say "I can't really do anything"
TPTB is counting on self-defeating citizens like you, the more citizens are like you "I can't do nothing" the more they get to do whatever evil fuck they wanna do and get away with it
You do not just sit there and wait for change to come
You must push, you must work hard to before CHANGE can happen
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
It doesn't matter if the have a law fixed up in their own country to revoke the embassy status just like that. There are international treaties how we work with embassies and how to treat embassies and the diplomatic personnel. De jure Assange is in Ecuador and not in Great Britain.
To violate international treaties an cause that the trust in the UK gets minimized. Therefore it is not advisable to really do it. The move alone is enough damage to that trust.
On the side. I do not car about that Assange guy, who is just a popular figure and is highly overrated. Sweden is not some banana republic, so go there have a trial and if he violated Swedish law pay for it. It is not that Swedish prisons are like those shown in US movies, if he ever has to go there. Afterwards he can go back to Australia without any trouble.
The USA is a very big economic power. The USA can say to the UK "either you give up this one little guy or we can change some esoteric tax tarriff that will mean many of your businesses can't trade so well with us, and therefore put millions of people in your country out of work and crash your economy. Your choice". Little countries have to do what big countries tell them to do or face the consequences.
Welcome to the world of real politics and economic strategy. Maybe David Cameron (UK Prime Minister) hates looking like the US's lapdog but has decided he couldn't look a whole town in the eye and tell them that they are all going to be unemployed for the next ten years because the US company they all work for has decided to move out to Poland/Ireland/Portugal etc. on the US government's advice, and he's had to make that choice.
Or in english: "The last argument of kings". It was cast on the cannons of Louis XIV. The armed forces who storm the embassy could have it painted on their chests.
Wow, what an interesting opinion, is it based on facts and actual knowledge of law? Do you have a Scandinavian or other European law degree? I do.
The only source for claims that Sweden will extradite him is from Assange's own supporters. I have read their blogs filled with non-legal opinion pieces.
I'm sorry to say this, but it is quite evident that is your brain that is "fucked" up. I hope you find some actual arguments for your next reply.
Diplomatic Segway?
Regardless of the rape charges, This would be a big violation of international law regardless of what the national law might be. They can't just storm an embassy. They might close it, but as have been said they have to give enough time for staff to leave. Although he really should answer and defend himself. Storming an embassy is the last thing needed here, it would set an horrible precedent. I am sure Ecuador could perhaps work out someway to have him in equador after the interrogation if no charges pressed or having him there after sentence is carried.
A Sleeping Person Cannot Consent, Period. That's rape.
What if my wife of many years and I both wake up during sex? Are we both raping each other? Or does guilt in this case automatically default to the man? I have heard of guys being woken up with blow-jobs, never have I heard them claim rape or sexual abuse.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I think you're confused between the Libyan Embassy Siege (1984) and the Iranian Embassy Siege (1980): The gunman was in the Libyan embassy: "Following the shooting, the embassy was surrounded by armed police for eleven days, in one of the longest police sieges in London's history. Meanwhile, Gaddafi claimed that the embassy was under attack from British forces, and Libyan soldiers surrounded the United Kingdom's embassy in Tripoli in response. The British government eventually resolved the incident by allowing the embassy staff to leave the embassy and then expelling them from the country." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher Whereas the Iranian Embassy was stormed by the DRFLA and retaken by UK security forces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege
So this guy engages in espionage, breaks international protocol and violates the confidentiality of the Diplomatic Bag, and people actually expect governments to let him go free? Wikileaks has already cost lives by not consistently redacting names in their publications. As far as I am concerned a rape charges is the least of his worries.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Also.. you have some nerve dismissing colonialism while at the same time bringing up the middle east.
After WWI when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the Europeans moved in and claimed the area for themselves.. The British and French divided it up under the Sykes–Picot Agreement.
Syria - French
Lebanon - French
Northern Iraq - French
Transjordan - British
Palestine - British
Southern Iraq - British
Then in 1945, they just drew some lines on a map, called them countries, and left the whole region.
Somalia - British colony until 1960
Pakistan - British until 1947
Zimbabwe - British until 1980
Myanmar - British until 1948
Palestine/Israel - British until 1948
You can't just deprive people of managing their own affairs, drain their country of wealth, hold them down under your thumb, and then when they FINALLY get free of your tyranny.. wash your hands of everything you've done and say: look how terrible and violent these people are.
Many of the colonies have serious problems, and the fact that they were colonies was a big part of that.
It sounds like the problem is that the British government has made two incompatible promises. On the one hand the rules of diplomacy require that an embassy be untouchable. But equally, extradition treaties with Sweden and other countries require that the government do everything possible to extradite a suspect if it receives an extradition request and the request is not successfully challenged in court. Which takes priority? Perhaps the right answer is for Sweden to negotiate an extradition treaty with Ecuador. But requiring that would set a dangerous precedent - any suspect facing extradition could avoid it just by finding one embassy among hundreds willing to shelter him. You can imagine that undeveloped, cash-strapped countries could even offer this as a paid service; it wouldn't be the first time that overseas embassies have been used for profit-making legal arbitrage. Without the ability to revoke immunity if necessary, it would be impossible for the host country to do anything about it.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
just saying...
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
He can't be made an official with diplomatic immunity without UK consent. Anything he carries may not be searched if it's Ecuadorian diplomatic communique. But he can still be arrested immediately he walks out the door, messenger, "diplomat" (unofficial without UK consent) or not.
Vienna Convention - "Article 9. The host nation may at any time and for any reason declare a particular member of the diplomatic staff to be persona non grata. The sending state must recall this person within a reasonable period of time, or otherwise this person may lose their diplomatic immunity."
*That*'s what they're really threatening. The ambassador is refusing permission to enter to arrest Assange. If he doesn't give it, they will just make him a "non-diplomat" and send the ambassador home. Then there's no-one to refuse permission to enter, and they can just walk in and arrest Assange. But having to dispel a diplomat because he was harbouring a criminal is a bit extreme when he could have just said "Okay, police, yes, in you come, he's over there" at any point.
it would be much easier to get him extradited from the UK to the US than from Sweden.
On what charge? He was never in the USA, and is a foreign national? Do you know what sovereignty is?
If the USA went after Assage dirctly, the UK courts would have had no choice but to recognize that this was a politically motivated attack over wikileaks. So instead, they sent a spy and created some dirt.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
That's actually a myth, embassies are not considered the territory of the countries they represent. They have certain protections under international and domestic laws but that's as far as it goes.
Definitely, Assange doesn't believe his own hype, he wouldn't cross Russia or China because he knows he'd actually be in personal jeopardy. He's a classic narcissist with megalomaniac tendencies, witness his prior claims that he personally owns whatever is provided to wikileaks.
I don't think "persecution" means what you think it means.
The UK courts did not review the case. They reviewed the laws of Sweden and the extradition procedure and found that Assange might have broken them but at the same time they also mentioned that the 'crime' was not a crime under their laws so they would not prosecute him under their laws.
A sleeping person wakes up when you have sex with them unlike what the pornography business might have you believe. Also, if you're in a relationship with someone it's really hard to prove rape as you have consented and if one of the partners wants to get freaky at night, why not? I have done it and have been on the receiving end as well.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Sure...but that takes all the fun out of leaving them captured in the car for hours or even days.
Of course I probably just a sadist.
Violation of diplomatic rights would have immediate worldwide implications. The current protection of those rights is a remarkably strong support to "world peace" (to the extent we have it).
Sure, we could spank South America. It'd cost us a hell of a lot, and you're assuming Russia, India and China would stay out of it, which (in the face of "Western imperialist aggression") is pretty fucking unlikely.
You mean, they let a terminally ill person leave prison so he could die at home instead of waiting the extra few months it would've taken him to demonstrate his whole trial was a fucking sham and that his conviction was politically driven and an abuse of justice?
Yes, they did.
someone who would have consensual sex with a woman without a condom when the woman said she wanted him to wear a condom
What huh?
Unprotected sex with someone who has stated that they do not want unprotected sex is NOT consensual sex!
paintball
"In most civilised nations, healthcare is treated as an essential basic service just like policing, fire, and the military are."
Another poster said, "Imagine just NOT HAVING TO WORRY about healthcare or costs."
Both of these attitudes are problematic. No society has unlimited resources to devote to anything, including healthcare. Therefore, healthcare consumers should shop around, and financially reward the providers who give higher-quality care at lower cost. They should not be thrown into the largest government bureaucracy that ever existed (which is currently being spun up, now that John Roberts said the "Affordable Care Act" "is within Congress's power to tax," nevermind this). Such bureaucracies are notoriously insensitive to cost, and tend to rely on rationing mechanisms.
Am I saying that patients should be expected to shop around in emergency situations? Of course not. And most healthcare is not delivered in emergency situations.
Free markets and competition rarely intersect with the world of healthcare, but this is what happens when they do: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3602626
A truly civilized nation would make healthcare a very free market, which would drive prices very low and make unsubsidized treatments affordable to many more people than they otherwise would be. And then, the burden of helping those people who are still unable to afford treatment would be quite light and manageable.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
..that not too long ago was holding a Chinese political dissident who allegedly commited some crimes for inciting the public? if I am not mistaken the British embassy said the Chinese should adhere to international laws and not attempt kidnap or return the man after seeking asylum from her majesty Ms. Clinton.
????
Seems like the west is very selective in what laws it obeys, when it now decides it is going to storm a embassy and violate treaties it signed.
-Hack.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Just another reason to loath the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9473078/Theresa-May-to-run-the-UK-as-Westminster-empties.html
And May is a US patsy - she'll roll over for the RIAA, let alone the state department
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/13/theresa-may-extradition-richard-odwyer
So what happens when she's in charge ? I guess she sends in the police, pushes Assange to wherever her masters tell her, and then gets blamed / sacked as an apology for the resulting diplomatic outcry. Which is handy, as she's a liability the government would love to lose.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/14/olympics-theresa-may
The UK government is bluffing. Does anyone seriously think their government will upset international relations over this? They are simply stating that they could do it in order to see if it gets results. However, if something like this does happen, I will wonder who is really pulling the strings over there.
Originally, WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange fled Iceland as he was under surveillance by business-suited strangers, plus he was tipped off by the bank where the WikiLeaks’ account was located that they had been approached by US government personnel.
In Sweden, Assange was immediately approached by a Bonnier family publication for exclusive rights in publishing WikiLeaked documents. Assange declined their offer, both against the principle of exclusivity, and because he’d been advised that the publication was similar to Rupert Murdoch’s British tabloids; not necessarily respectable.
It is important to understand that the Bonnier family is a major European media family (Bonnier AB is one of the 10 largest media companies in the world), who’s ownership extends to American publications such as Sports Illustrated, Popular Science, Time, etc.
The woman who first approached Assange for consensual sex, Anna Ardin, worked for one of the Bonnier family publications, and while her present source of income is difficult to determine, she appears to be surviving nicely. Ardin would later approach the second young lady, Sofia Wilen (who also had consensual sex with Assange), to accompany her to the police.
The law firm which volunteered to represent the two women is comprised of two law partners, Claes Borgstrom, who has two sisters who work for Bonnier family companies, and Thomas Bodstrom, who publishes through the Bonnier family media company (he writes legal fiction).
Bodstrom was also the Swedish Minister of Justice who had OK’ed the CIA’s illegal kidnapping of several Swedish citizens of Arabic origin --- also called extreme rendition --- who were transported to Egypt for torture (and what could have led to murder), but were eventually released and sued the Swedish government in Swedish courts, winning a financial judgment against them.
Sweden claims it would never allow extradition to any country with a legalized death penalty, yet by allowing extreme renditions to such countries, we know this to be a lie.
Originally when the women approached the police, a junior prosecutor on duty ordered Assange to remain in Sweden, but the Swedish Prosecution Authority shortly dropped all charges as they had no merit.
Later, after allowing Assange to leave Sweden, and due to political pressure from the highest levels of government, the Swedish Prosecution Authority resumed the case without merit, seeking Assange’s extradition, solely for questioning, in violation of both existing Swedish law, and the regulations pertaining to issuing European Union arrest warrants (two very important points!).
During those early events in Sweden, Anna Ardin had chat message traffic with reporters for a Bonnier family tabloid, Expressen, which indicated criminal conspiracy and malfeasance on her part, and while her attorney, Claes Borgstrom, illegally directed her to delete this evidence, she forgot to delete the copy from her blog site, later downloaded by an enterprising Australian journalist.
Unfortunately, this has received scant attention or reportage in the corporate media.
Later, the other law partner and former Justice Minister, Thomas Bodstrom, went on a book tour in America, where he routinely spread disinformation about the WikiLeaks/Assange case. Much of the time Bodstrom stayed at a residence in Virginia, a short drive from the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
A curious coincidence, or logistical necessity?
The present Justice Minister, Beatrice Ask, who resurrected the extradition case against Assange, was originally appointed to her cabinet positions by Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister who is presently the Swedish foreign minister.
Carl Bildt appears unfavorably mentioned in several WikiLeaked cables, and was a director at Lundin Petroleum during their involvement in massacres of Sudanese living
If the embassy has diplomatic vehicles parked within the premises and not across the street or elsewhere, Assange can get into one of those vehicles, with a diplomat, and drive somewhere, with the police not having the right to detain him. Problem for him is he'd have to get out at the airport or somewhere.
Couldn't they just drive the whole vehicle onto the plane?
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Finally, someone who recognizes the actual status of a diplomatic mission within a host country and the laws of diplomacy.
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)
mod'd informative?? really? what was informative about this guy, trolling, and yet telling others not to troll?
what information did he bring to the table? seriously. why mod him informative?
we get that you are a shill and you are taking the party line against julian. but if you have nothing to offer other than your hate, please take it elsewhere. maybe fox news has a forum more to your liking?
There's a party line against Assange? On /.?
The informative mod was probably because someone agreed with my point that all this drama is making Assange a sympathetic figure, and the governments would be better served if they leaved him alone.
What's sad is that you didn't catch that. I feel entirely justified in my remarks about Assange's sycophant fans.
(By the way, the past tense of "mod", whether it means modify or moderate, is "modded".)