i know, there are all sorts of dueling legal definitions. i also know politician and intarwebs ranters have called pretty much every single thing you can think of terrorism. it's the new hitler/ fascist/ nazi overused concept. overused to the point of meaninglessness. it waters down the meaning of the actual idea of what terrorism is to use the word about anything you don't like
I was going off the Oxford dictionary definition, which hasn't been changed in decades, not the flavor of the day definition used by politicians, laypeople, or anyone with a sense of the dramatic and lacking in scruples.
the uk is warning assange and ecuador. it is also threatening to remove him not kill him. this means what the uk is not doing is NOT terrorism
Fine. I'm going to tie you up and throw you in the Pit of Despair. See? I'm compassionate!
but when you call what the uk is doing terrorism, you do a disservice to all of those who have died in actual acts of terrorism.
What the UK is doing is terrorism -- and it's hardly the first time they've done stuff like this. I understand the Irish can speak to that. They're also responsible for much of the political unrest in the Middle East -- they are the direct cause of Israel existing, and the whole issue about the Palestinians. After the last world war, they chopped up the entire region without much regard for who was living there or their beliefs. They aren't just practicing terrorism, they're responsible for a lot of it as well.
A âoediplomatic agentâ is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission;
person of a diplomatic agent. Big difference. That's anyone the diplomatic staff says is under their protection. One use for this is couriers. Let's say a local courier service is contracted to deliver, say, a new passport for one of its citizens that had one lost or stolen. Such a person can be designated ad hoc and without the approval of the host country, and gains the protections of the Vienna Convention while the package is delivered. The country's police can't legally detain or arrest the courier. Same with any other diplomatic package. Without this ability, embassies couldn't conduct routine business in the host country.
Article 9 states that the host country does have the right to expel a diplomatic envoy, or any member thereof, but they have the right to vacate "within a reasonable period of time" and cannot be arrested or detained in so doing. Article 9 is basically a leasing agreement: it can be revoked, but that doesn't mean the landlord gets to keep the people or property that are part of the diplomatic envoy.
If your position was tenable, then the moment war broke out, or during war, or during any conflict whatsoever, no embassies could be left in the other country because of the risk of violence or attack by that country... which makes the entire point of an embassy go away: A way of maintaining diplomatic relations. There's plenty of history of embassies being attacked and bombed by the host country... and it's always been condemned internationally as a violation of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations -- and the countries that do that tend to not have very many embassies or diplomatic relations with other countries after that. Countries that have broken the Convention aren't trusted, and have to resort to military force to address any of the problems that would have otherwise been resolved diplomatically.
The Conventions benefit everyone -- it allows things to be resolved peacefully. When you violate the treaty, or (in the case of the US) withdraw from it, you are sending a clear signal to the international community that you are a militant state who prefers to solve all of its problems with violence. I hope Britain has the cash to support a much larger standing army than it does now... and I do wonder how they'll avoid the problems of resorting to military force all the time -- Another country that likes to do this, the United States, is bankrupting itself and all measures of quality of life for its citizens are falling because of its lack of restraint in diplomatic matters. Will Britain's citizens tolerate the destruction of its middle class as complicitly as the US has? If you're a UK citizen who supports this unilateral action, you should open your wallet right now and ask yourself if you can do with less. It's your choice, but take it from a US citizen -- it costs more than you think.
I'm staggered, blown away, by the number of people here who think it doesn't mean that on the basis that the word "storm" isn't in the threat
People are like that; Once they take a position, they won't change it no matter the facts. Outside the sciences, I've never heard the phrase, "I hadn't considered that. I guess I was wrong." Right now, troops could be massing outside the embassy and these same people would be sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "I can't heeeeear you! Glory, glory, hallelujah!" Right up until the exact moment where what they are denying it's actually happening, and it can no longer be denied, they'll maintain their position. Then they'll change their tune; "It's justified," or, "It wasn't that bad." And finally, when the costs are tabulated, when everyone is tired of suffering, and they're miserable, and beyond even being angry and simply just want it to end... they might admit that it's all the other guy's fault for making them do it.
Definitely a different sense of the place than the one given by the reddish-brown posters I remember from elementary school.
Yeah, damn those elementary schools for showing you unedited pictures of the cosmos. You can really only inspire grade-school children by lying to them with photoshopped pictures. Maybe NASA should rename the mast camera BieberCam and photoshop in very small pictures of Bieber hiding behind a rock, you know, drum up some interest in science by... doing unscientific things, like photo alteration.
There is no law, statute or convention that protects him in there, under asylum or not (he has NOT been granted UK asylum, and cannot leave the building to be taken anywhere else that might recognise asylum for him).
Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states otherwise. In one sentence. No exceptions.
The UK *MUST* extradite him or their laws mean nothing.
No, the UK doesn't have to do anything. They're a sovereign power. And they're a sovereign power that signed a treaty stating that embassies hosted within their borders are involate, as is any person under their protection. And that treaty also stipulates that while they can expel the envoy, and all persons under their protection, they still can't touch them. Treaties supercede both UK law and EU law; that's the very definition of a treaty.
And for the record, there's no "temporary" dissolution of the embassy. Equador made their choice, they said the UK is wrong. If the UK resorts to military action, they're not setting up an embassy again -- they just wiped their ass with a treaty they signed, and it doesn't just affect Equador, but every treaty signee, who now has to consider that the UK has shown it will resort to violence to get what it wants out of the embassies. Many embassies will close in the UK, especially those without militaries of equal size. They'll be held as oath-breakers -- they won't be trusted for a long time with keeping their word on anything negotiated diplomatically. It might mean the UK can't do prisoner exchanges anymore with other countries, or get its own citizens out of a bind in those countries. The UK will have to resort to violence then to solve every one of its diplomatic problems, since their word is now worth nothing.
This is no longer about Assage; the UK has become militant, committed an act of terrorism, and is a threat to the national security of over a hundred countries. And if it doesn't back down, the damage will be severe, swift, and irreparable. As a citizen of the UK who supports this action, you need to be asking yourself how much extra taxation you're willing to bear for increased military expenditures, and how comfortable you are with the UKs more aggressive stance. And you might want to cancel any travel arrangements you have to... just about anywhere outside your country. If you run afoul of any laws while abroad, you might not have an embassy to help you sort it out. In fact, in some places, you may be arrested and held as a prisoner of war to be used as a bargaining chip to get their own citizens released from UK jails.
This is the price to be paid when you walk this path.
Now he's forced them into a legal corner where they can either BREACH the EU laws on extradition or not.
That doesn't explain them threatening to break into another embassy, violating their sovereignty and the Vienna convention in the process. EU laws don't pre-empt a country's treaty obligations, even the EU recognizes that. So if they had pursued all legal options and then said "Well, we have to extradite you" and stopped there, no problem. Except they didn't: When another country stepped in and said "We'll take over from here," relieving them of any obligations they might have had, they balked and then threatened to use military force.
They lost the moral high ground when they did that, and the legal one.
(Assange is NOT covered by any of the laws involving diplomats or embassies personally).
Except that he is; Article 19 of the Vienna convention, which states that anyone under the protection of the diplomatic envoy cannot be arrested. They'd be violating the treaty if they interfered with his free movement within the embassy, or his travel from it in order to transport him to Equador. It is an act of war to put boots on sovereign soil, and legally, that's what the embassy is. Their only legal recourse now is to expel Equador's diplomatic envoy -- but that doesn't get them Assange either. He's still protected under the Vienna convention, even if the UK decides to expel all of them. It's a package deal.
The best money laundering vehicle remains the USD denominated in good old $100 greenbacks.
Not really, no. The biggest problem with drug cartels is what to do with all those damn physical dollars. They take up a lot of space and complicate logistics considerably, even fatally. So they use bank accounts, credit cards, etc., to purchase supplies and cut checks to their employees, just like any other business. But to do that, their financial records have to look just like any other business too, or the money will be seized.
Money laundering is not a simple process like people believe it is, especially when the sums become non-trivial. It's actually very complicated, since every financial transaction is recorded electronically. Nobody shows up with a fist full of hundred dollar bills to buy a house, or a car -- those that do immediately get added to a dozen different watchlists. You pay with a guaranteed check, a credit card, or other financial instrument. Nowhere is the old adage "When in Rome..." more true than in money laundering. Your records have to look the same as any other legitimate business. Even the smallest discrepancy, the most benign mistake in your record keeping, and a forensic accountant could flag you -- and then the government comes and throws you in a black van and you're never seen from again.
Most drug dealers are busted on money laundering charges, not drugs. And for good reason -- it's a lot easier to hide drugs than money.
Then let me stand up and join you. I'm an American. I'm sorry my country has used back room deals to convince your country to make a terroristic threat because it was too cowardly to make. Everyone can plainly see at this point Sweden and the UK both caved to US demands to fabricate excuses and crimes to get this man back here -- all because he embarassed us politically, showing the world our true colors in the war on terror. I, too, am ashamed of my governments actions.
I hope you will not think any less of America's citizens because of the actions of the American government.
Let me guess, you don't like my use of the word Terrorist with regard to your favorite country, because if the UK extradites to Sweden, Sweden extradites to the US, and of course the US would never ask their close ally, the UK, to commit an act of terrorism, since they're so big on the whole War On Terrorism.
Except that's exactly what this is. The very definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes", and that's exactly what the UK has done when it threatened to 'storm the embassy' in order to gain political advantage.
Stop modding me down for saying what is literally and precisely what has happened. You might not like the verbiage, but it's the plain facts of the case -- it was a terroristic threat, and Equador courageously said "No." And that's remarkable precisely because it wasn't a threat made by some backwater country who's primary natural resource is dirt, and most of their citizens live in grass huts. This was made by a country with nuclear weapons, a standing force of hundreds of thousands, and could easily wipe Equador off the face of the Earth. They said "No," to that. They're risking everything to stand up for their principles.
They deserve to be commended, and I refuse to be silenced for standing up and applauding their resistance to bow to terroristic threats. Now go ahead, mod me to oblivion. And bravo Equador.
1) Where did the UK state that? (i.e. you HAVEN'T read the letter, which was published in the same newspaper linked to above - there is no mention of storming or even entering ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire letter).
That would be the last story slashdot posted on this... 12 hours ago, and it was based on a BBC story mentioning the letter, and to quote directly from the Foreign Minister of Equador: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange," he said."
2) It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy or even expel all the diplomatic staff. Go read it. It's quite clear that the UK can do that "at any time, and for any reason". Assange isn't covered by that, no matter what.
It violates article 9 of the Vienna convention, a treaty signed by the UK which supercecedes national law. That's the very definition of a treaty. The US has stated it has withdrawn from the Vienna convention, which is why it considers itself able to commit forced extradition of other countries citizens without any need to explain or justify itself. It has taken the diplomatic position of "We have more guns. Go ahead and try and stop us, but some piece of paper means nothing to us."
Rather than take Assange out of the embassy, they have threatened (indirectly and politely) to take the embassy away from Assange. Which is perfectly legitimate.
Yes, well, I see you have your life and liberty. I can't take away your liberty, so I'll just threaten to take your life -- indirectly and politely. It's perfectly legitimate because although it ends the exact same way, I can now say I never threatened to take away your liberty... your dead corpse will still have it. My internet logic is unbeatable!
Legitimacy isn't defined as what you can get away with; It's sticking to what you said before. And the UK signed the treaty, and the treaty is very explicit about this, in no uncertain terms, beyond any internet-troll logic: Once asylum is granted, the other country can't do anything to that person. Not while they're at the embassy. Not while they're in a vehicle leaving the embassy under the embassies protection. Not while they're at the airport getting out of the car. Not once they're in the air. Not anything. Anywhere. At anytime. For any reason. Period. End. Of. Discussion.
To quote directly from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, source from the website of the organization responsible for its creation and oversight, the UN, Article 22, Item 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, as wll as Article 29, The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest
or detention.
You'll note it says person of a diplomatic agent; which refers to anyone under the protection of that embassy. It does not require approval of the host country, and does not restrict in any way that diplomatic envoy's right to designate any person as being under their protection, at any time, for any reason.
So those black scorch marks on the sidewalk wasn't caused by the detonation of a nuclear bomb?
Did the U.S. government ever apologize for this?
Yes, 24 years later. Of the approximately 180,000 held for committing the crime of guilt by association, the 82,000 survivors were given $20,000 each. Most were never compensated for their loss of property -- of the $148 million in claims for property, only $32 million was given out. The IRS and many government agencies had destroyed records pertaining to property ownership by japanese-americans, "complicating" such efforts. Those who died in internment camps or their families after were not paid anything, and none had any medical costs for treatment of injuries or disease due to their stay paid for. This is far less per-person than "regular" americans who are imprisoned and later found to be innocent, the average disbursement for them is typically about $150,000, along with compensation for all property losses and medical.
And the Dutch. And the English. And the Spanish. That was a thing of that era.
I'm sure when officers pull you over for speeding, the reply "Everyone else was too!" is an affirmative defense then.
That's even longer ago. You can't compare our generations with generations centuries ago. If it would not have been for the Catholic Church, no suspected witch would ever have been burned. Same story, same history lesson.
No, just their mistakes. And no, it's not the same story or history lesson: In the Dark Ages, records were poor, history wasn't taught in school, and most people weren't educated. They should have known better -- they did know better.
I get your point, I really do. But instead of focusing on the negative sides of your country, focus on the positive ones...
No, I don't think you do. My entire point was that patriotism minimizes, rationalizes, and denies truth. How many millions must die, how much blood must be spilled, before we can speak the truth the first time, and then... just keep speaking it?
And I have seen the U.S. say sorry many times.
People who abuse their partners do the same thing -- they say they're sorry, then they continue beating them up.
The UK has stated it will storm the embassy by force, violating the Vienna Conventions. Equador has shown remarkable courage, doing something many in the international community doubted it could: It has stood up to tyranny. It has stated it will now bow under the threat of terrorism. It does not negotiate with terrorists.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, I would be speaking German by now.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, half of APAC would be speaking Japanese by now.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, whole Iraq would still be terrorized by Saddam and his family.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, Kuwait would still be a province of Iraq.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, every schoolgirl in Afghanistan would be shot by the Taliban.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, we would not have a rover on Mars today.
I can also come up with a list. It's not as flattering as yours, but it's just as patriotic:
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, a hundred thousand japanese would not have been turned into carbon scorch marks.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, many thousands of their citizens of japanese descent wouldn't have been held in concentration camps.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, millions of blacks wouldn't have been imported here and then enslaved.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, the native americans who lived here before would still be alive, before we wiped them out by giving them blankets laced with small pox -- an act of genocide using a weapon of mass destruction.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans... ah, well, the list goes on.
That's the problem I have with patriotism: It only acknowledges what we do right, and minimizes, rationalizes, or dismisses what we did wrong. We have wronged a lot of people out there -- and I can't be proud of that, no matter how it's sugar coated or rationalized. If we're going to be world leaders, we need to learn to say we're sorry once in awhile, and put things right again. Right now, we're more thugs than leaders, enforcing our view of the world at the end of a gun, rather than a pen. For the country that created the internet, the most democratic form of communication ever created, it shouldn't be that way.
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.
al-Qaeda started in Afghanistan... and when we responded with the War on Terror, we didn't invade Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, or Egypt: We invaded Afghanistan. As I understand it, they were very thankful that the events of that September led to their country having millions of ordinance dropped on them. The citizens remain very thankful to this day.
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.
Oh, us Americans do it all the time; that whole "we have more guns than you" -- It has made us many friends overseas. I understand we were thanked by the citizens of Afghanistan in New York a few years back, in September, for a similar action. It was such a powerful gesture by the international community that we erected monuments and printed millions of bumper stickers to commemorate the occasion. Ever since, we've tried very hard to repeat that successful policy by sending peace envoys all over the world -- 150 countries and counting currently host them! We highly recommend storming embassies to any country who wants to bolster their international reputation.
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.
If Twitter was really based on an open source model, they would have fixed that 160 character limit a long time ago; It's a relic of a bygone era. They also would have added some extra privacy and patched the security vulnerability in the EULA module.
That would be quite difficult for a C/assembly project to use a Java compiler.
*shrug* They've been dragging their heels for years, claiming that there's no practical way to do it, that the quality is inferior, etc., etc. And now there's a way to generate bytecode that can be executed on the GPU and return predictable results. I'm sure someone who knows assembler can figure out a simple FIFO or IPC / shared memory arrangement... At this point, they can't hide behind technical hurdles: It's clear GPUs can be used, they just don't want to because they're stuck up.
Maybe now the x264 developers will add GPU support and we'll finally have a solution for video encoding that uses the processor and GPUs in parallel. Here's to hoping...:\
The protocols on these systems aren't encrypted. It's entirely possible that the device and tech needed to decode it are very similar if not identical to what would be required to make modifications to the device. Maybe that's the reason the manufacturer doesn't want to give the patient direct access...
It seems weird that a patient can't get access to data about his own heart.
No more weird than your stem cells and DNA being patented. In fact, according to intellectual property law, you don't own your body, or any of the parts implanted in it... it's all covered by a patchwork of patents on genetic materials and derived medical uses. You should be careful with yourself... it's a felony to damage government property... Or was that corporations? I confuse the two so much these days... (-_-)
Slashdot Mirror
i know, there are all sorts of dueling legal definitions. i also know politician and intarwebs ranters have called pretty much every single thing you can think of terrorism. it's the new hitler/ fascist/ nazi overused concept. overused to the point of meaninglessness. it waters down the meaning of the actual idea of what terrorism is to use the word about anything you don't like
I was going off the Oxford dictionary definition, which hasn't been changed in decades, not the flavor of the day definition used by politicians, laypeople, or anyone with a sense of the dramatic and lacking in scruples.
the uk is warning assange and ecuador. it is also threatening to remove him not kill him. this means what the uk is not doing is NOT terrorism
Fine. I'm going to tie you up and throw you in the Pit of Despair. See? I'm compassionate!
but when you call what the uk is doing terrorism, you do a disservice to all of those who have died in actual acts of terrorism.
What the UK is doing is terrorism -- and it's hardly the first time they've done stuff like this. I understand the Irish can speak to that. They're also responsible for much of the political unrest in the Middle East -- they are the direct cause of Israel existing, and the whole issue about the Palestinians. After the last world war, they chopped up the entire region without much regard for who was living there or their beliefs. They aren't just practicing terrorism, they're responsible for a lot of it as well.
A âoediplomatic agentâ is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission;
person of a diplomatic agent. Big difference. That's anyone the diplomatic staff says is under their protection. One use for this is couriers. Let's say a local courier service is contracted to deliver, say, a new passport for one of its citizens that had one lost or stolen. Such a person can be designated ad hoc and without the approval of the host country, and gains the protections of the Vienna Convention while the package is delivered. The country's police can't legally detain or arrest the courier. Same with any other diplomatic package. Without this ability, embassies couldn't conduct routine business in the host country.
Article 9 states that the host country does have the right to expel a diplomatic envoy, or any member thereof, but they have the right to vacate "within a reasonable period of time" and cannot be arrested or detained in so doing. Article 9 is basically a leasing agreement: it can be revoked, but that doesn't mean the landlord gets to keep the people or property that are part of the diplomatic envoy.
If your position was tenable, then the moment war broke out, or during war, or during any conflict whatsoever, no embassies could be left in the other country because of the risk of violence or attack by that country... which makes the entire point of an embassy go away: A way of maintaining diplomatic relations. There's plenty of history of embassies being attacked and bombed by the host country... and it's always been condemned internationally as a violation of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations -- and the countries that do that tend to not have very many embassies or diplomatic relations with other countries after that. Countries that have broken the Convention aren't trusted, and have to resort to military force to address any of the problems that would have otherwise been resolved diplomatically.
The Conventions benefit everyone -- it allows things to be resolved peacefully. When you violate the treaty, or (in the case of the US) withdraw from it, you are sending a clear signal to the international community that you are a militant state who prefers to solve all of its problems with violence. I hope Britain has the cash to support a much larger standing army than it does now... and I do wonder how they'll avoid the problems of resorting to military force all the time -- Another country that likes to do this, the United States, is bankrupting itself and all measures of quality of life for its citizens are falling because of its lack of restraint in diplomatic matters. Will Britain's citizens tolerate the destruction of its middle class as complicitly as the US has? If you're a UK citizen who supports this unilateral action, you should open your wallet right now and ask yourself if you can do with less. It's your choice, but take it from a US citizen -- it costs more than you think.
I'm staggered, blown away, by the number of people here who think it doesn't mean that on the basis that the word "storm" isn't in the threat
People are like that; Once they take a position, they won't change it no matter the facts. Outside the sciences, I've never heard the phrase, "I hadn't considered that. I guess I was wrong." Right now, troops could be massing outside the embassy and these same people would be sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "I can't heeeeear you! Glory, glory, hallelujah!" Right up until the exact moment where what they are denying it's actually happening, and it can no longer be denied, they'll maintain their position. Then they'll change their tune; "It's justified," or, "It wasn't that bad." And finally, when the costs are tabulated, when everyone is tired of suffering, and they're miserable, and beyond even being angry and simply just want it to end... they might admit that it's all the other guy's fault for making them do it.
How much more do we need before the public accepts that it's just a few guys driving around Nevada?
I would accept a beer can in one of the photos as evidence.
Definitely a different sense of the place than the one given by the reddish-brown posters I remember from elementary school.
Yeah, damn those elementary schools for showing you unedited pictures of the cosmos. You can really only inspire grade-school children by lying to them with photoshopped pictures. Maybe NASA should rename the mast camera BieberCam and photoshop in very small pictures of Bieber hiding behind a rock, you know, drum up some interest in science by... doing unscientific things, like photo alteration.
Got that? It's officially not terrorism if a government does exactly the same things as, say, Hamas does.
I define you as wrong, and me as right. Definitions are always right, therefore I am right, and you are wrong. Good day sir.
Semantics... they'll fuck you every time.
There is no law, statute or convention that protects him in there, under asylum or not (he has NOT been granted UK asylum, and cannot leave the building to be taken anywhere else that might recognise asylum for him).
Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states otherwise. In one sentence. No exceptions.
The UK *MUST* extradite him or their laws mean nothing.
No, the UK doesn't have to do anything. They're a sovereign power. And they're a sovereign power that signed a treaty stating that embassies hosted within their borders are involate, as is any person under their protection. And that treaty also stipulates that while they can expel the envoy, and all persons under their protection, they still can't touch them. Treaties supercede both UK law and EU law; that's the very definition of a treaty.
And for the record, there's no "temporary" dissolution of the embassy. Equador made their choice, they said the UK is wrong. If the UK resorts to military action, they're not setting up an embassy again -- they just wiped their ass with a treaty they signed, and it doesn't just affect Equador, but every treaty signee, who now has to consider that the UK has shown it will resort to violence to get what it wants out of the embassies. Many embassies will close in the UK, especially those without militaries of equal size. They'll be held as oath-breakers -- they won't be trusted for a long time with keeping their word on anything negotiated diplomatically. It might mean the UK can't do prisoner exchanges anymore with other countries, or get its own citizens out of a bind in those countries. The UK will have to resort to violence then to solve every one of its diplomatic problems, since their word is now worth nothing.
This is no longer about Assage; the UK has become militant, committed an act of terrorism, and is a threat to the national security of over a hundred countries. And if it doesn't back down, the damage will be severe, swift, and irreparable. As a citizen of the UK who supports this action, you need to be asking yourself how much extra taxation you're willing to bear for increased military expenditures, and how comfortable you are with the UKs more aggressive stance. And you might want to cancel any travel arrangements you have to... just about anywhere outside your country. If you run afoul of any laws while abroad, you might not have an embassy to help you sort it out. In fact, in some places, you may be arrested and held as a prisoner of war to be used as a bargaining chip to get their own citizens released from UK jails.
This is the price to be paid when you walk this path.
Now he's forced them into a legal corner where they can either BREACH the EU laws on extradition or not.
That doesn't explain them threatening to break into another embassy, violating their sovereignty and the Vienna convention in the process. EU laws don't pre-empt a country's treaty obligations, even the EU recognizes that. So if they had pursued all legal options and then said "Well, we have to extradite you" and stopped there, no problem. Except they didn't: When another country stepped in and said "We'll take over from here," relieving them of any obligations they might have had, they balked and then threatened to use military force.
They lost the moral high ground when they did that, and the legal one.
(Assange is NOT covered by any of the laws involving diplomats or embassies personally).
Except that he is; Article 19 of the Vienna convention, which states that anyone under the protection of the diplomatic envoy cannot be arrested. They'd be violating the treaty if they interfered with his free movement within the embassy, or his travel from it in order to transport him to Equador. It is an act of war to put boots on sovereign soil, and legally, that's what the embassy is. Their only legal recourse now is to expel Equador's diplomatic envoy -- but that doesn't get them Assange either. He's still protected under the Vienna convention, even if the UK decides to expel all of them. It's a package deal.
The best money laundering vehicle remains the USD denominated in good old $100 greenbacks.
Not really, no. The biggest problem with drug cartels is what to do with all those damn physical dollars. They take up a lot of space and complicate logistics considerably, even fatally. So they use bank accounts, credit cards, etc., to purchase supplies and cut checks to their employees, just like any other business. But to do that, their financial records have to look just like any other business too, or the money will be seized.
Money laundering is not a simple process like people believe it is, especially when the sums become non-trivial. It's actually very complicated, since every financial transaction is recorded electronically. Nobody shows up with a fist full of hundred dollar bills to buy a house, or a car -- those that do immediately get added to a dozen different watchlists. You pay with a guaranteed check, a credit card, or other financial instrument. Nowhere is the old adage "When in Rome..." more true than in money laundering. Your records have to look the same as any other legitimate business. Even the smallest discrepancy, the most benign mistake in your record keeping, and a forensic accountant could flag you -- and then the government comes and throws you in a black van and you're never seen from again.
Most drug dealers are busted on money laundering charges, not drugs. And for good reason -- it's a lot easier to hide drugs than money.
Then let me stand up and join you. I'm an American. I'm sorry my country has used back room deals to convince your country to make a terroristic threat because it was too cowardly to make. Everyone can plainly see at this point Sweden and the UK both caved to US demands to fabricate excuses and crimes to get this man back here -- all because he embarassed us politically, showing the world our true colors in the war on terror. I, too, am ashamed of my governments actions.
I hope you will not think any less of America's citizens because of the actions of the American government.
Let me guess, you don't like my use of the word Terrorist with regard to your favorite country, because if the UK extradites to Sweden, Sweden extradites to the US, and of course the US would never ask their close ally, the UK, to commit an act of terrorism, since they're so big on the whole War On Terrorism.
Except that's exactly what this is. The very definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes", and that's exactly what the UK has done when it threatened to 'storm the embassy' in order to gain political advantage.
Stop modding me down for saying what is literally and precisely what has happened. You might not like the verbiage, but it's the plain facts of the case -- it was a terroristic threat, and Equador courageously said "No." And that's remarkable precisely because it wasn't a threat made by some backwater country who's primary natural resource is dirt, and most of their citizens live in grass huts. This was made by a country with nuclear weapons, a standing force of hundreds of thousands, and could easily wipe Equador off the face of the Earth. They said "No," to that. They're risking everything to stand up for their principles.
They deserve to be commended, and I refuse to be silenced for standing up and applauding their resistance to bow to terroristic threats. Now go ahead, mod me to oblivion. And bravo Equador.
1) Where did the UK state that? (i.e. you HAVEN'T read the letter, which was published in the same newspaper linked to above - there is no mention of storming or even entering ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire letter).
That would be the last story slashdot posted on this... 12 hours ago, and it was based on a BBC story mentioning the letter, and to quote directly from the Foreign Minister of Equador: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange," he said."
2) It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy or even expel all the diplomatic staff. Go read it. It's quite clear that the UK can do that "at any time, and for any reason". Assange isn't covered by that, no matter what.
It violates article 9 of the Vienna convention, a treaty signed by the UK which supercecedes national law. That's the very definition of a treaty. The US has stated it has withdrawn from the Vienna convention, which is why it considers itself able to commit forced extradition of other countries citizens without any need to explain or justify itself. It has taken the diplomatic position of "We have more guns. Go ahead and try and stop us, but some piece of paper means nothing to us."
Rather than take Assange out of the embassy, they have threatened (indirectly and politely) to take the embassy away from Assange. Which is perfectly legitimate.
Yes, well, I see you have your life and liberty. I can't take away your liberty, so I'll just threaten to take your life -- indirectly and politely. It's perfectly legitimate because although it ends the exact same way, I can now say I never threatened to take away your liberty... your dead corpse will still have it. My internet logic is unbeatable!
Legitimacy isn't defined as what you can get away with; It's sticking to what you said before. And the UK signed the treaty, and the treaty is very explicit about this, in no uncertain terms, beyond any internet-troll logic: Once asylum is granted, the other country can't do anything to that person. Not while they're at the embassy. Not while they're in a vehicle leaving the embassy under the embassies protection. Not while they're at the airport getting out of the car. Not once they're in the air. Not anything. Anywhere. At anytime. For any reason. Period. End. Of. Discussion.
To quote directly from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, source from the website of the organization responsible for its creation and oversight, the UN, Article 22, Item 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, as wll as Article 29, The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.
You'll note it says person of a diplomatic agent; which refers to anyone under the protection of that embassy. It does not require approval of the host country, and does not restrict in any way that diplomatic envoy's right to designate any person as being under their protection, at any time, for any reason.
You're rewriting history here
So those black scorch marks on the sidewalk wasn't caused by the detonation of a nuclear bomb?
Did the U.S. government ever apologize for this?
Yes, 24 years later. Of the approximately 180,000 held for committing the crime of guilt by association, the 82,000 survivors were given $20,000 each. Most were never compensated for their loss of property -- of the $148 million in claims for property, only $32 million was given out. The IRS and many government agencies had destroyed records pertaining to property ownership by japanese-americans, "complicating" such efforts. Those who died in internment camps or their families after were not paid anything, and none had any medical costs for treatment of injuries or disease due to their stay paid for. This is far less per-person than "regular" americans who are imprisoned and later found to be innocent, the average disbursement for them is typically about $150,000, along with compensation for all property losses and medical.
And the Dutch. And the English. And the Spanish. That was a thing of that era.
I'm sure when officers pull you over for speeding, the reply "Everyone else was too!" is an affirmative defense then.
That's even longer ago. You can't compare our generations with generations centuries ago. If it would not have been for the Catholic Church, no suspected witch would ever have been burned. Same story, same history lesson.
No, just their mistakes. And no, it's not the same story or history lesson: In the Dark Ages, records were poor, history wasn't taught in school, and most people weren't educated. They should have known better -- they did know better.
I get your point, I really do. But instead of focusing on the negative sides of your country, focus on the positive ones...
No, I don't think you do. My entire point was that patriotism minimizes, rationalizes, and denies truth. How many millions must die, how much blood must be spilled, before we can speak the truth the first time, and then... just keep speaking it?
And I have seen the U.S. say sorry many times.
People who abuse their partners do the same thing -- they say they're sorry, then they continue beating them up.
The UK has stated it will storm the embassy by force, violating the Vienna Conventions. Equador has shown remarkable courage, doing something many in the international community doubted it could: It has stood up to tyranny. It has stated it will now bow under the threat of terrorism. It does not negotiate with terrorists.
Your move, Britain.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, I would be speaking German by now. If it would not have been for the brave Americans, half of APAC would be speaking Japanese by now. If it would not have been for the brave Americans, whole Iraq would still be terrorized by Saddam and his family. If it would not have been for the brave Americans, Kuwait would still be a province of Iraq. If it would not have been for the brave Americans, every schoolgirl in Afghanistan would be shot by the Taliban. If it would not have been for the brave Americans, we would not have a rover on Mars today.
I can also come up with a list. It's not as flattering as yours, but it's just as patriotic:
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, a hundred thousand japanese would not have been turned into carbon scorch marks.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, many thousands of their citizens of japanese descent wouldn't have been held in concentration camps.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, millions of blacks wouldn't have been imported here and then enslaved.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans, the native americans who lived here before would still be alive, before we wiped them out by giving them blankets laced with small pox -- an act of genocide using a weapon of mass destruction.
If it would not have been for the brave Americans... ah, well, the list goes on.
That's the problem I have with patriotism: It only acknowledges what we do right, and minimizes, rationalizes, or dismisses what we did wrong. We have wronged a lot of people out there -- and I can't be proud of that, no matter how it's sugar coated or rationalized. If we're going to be world leaders, we need to learn to say we're sorry once in awhile, and put things right again. Right now, we're more thugs than leaders, enforcing our view of the world at the end of a gun, rather than a pen. For the country that created the internet, the most democratic form of communication ever created, it shouldn't be that way.
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.
al-Qaeda started in Afghanistan... and when we responded with the War on Terror, we didn't invade Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, or Egypt: We invaded Afghanistan. As I understand it, they were very thankful that the events of that September led to their country having millions of ordinance dropped on them. The citizens remain very thankful to this day.
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.
Oh, us Americans do it all the time; that whole "we have more guns than you" -- It has made us many friends overseas. I understand we were thanked by the citizens of Afghanistan in New York a few years back, in September, for a similar action. It was such a powerful gesture by the international community that we erected monuments and printed millions of bumper stickers to commemorate the occasion. Ever since, we've tried very hard to repeat that successful policy by sending peace envoys all over the world -- 150 countries and counting currently host them! We highly recommend storming embassies to any country who wants to bolster their international reputation.
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.
If Twitter was really based on an open source model, they would have fixed that 160 character limit a long time ago; It's a relic of a bygone era. They also would have added some extra privacy and patched the security vulnerability in the EULA module.
That would be quite difficult for a C/assembly project to use a Java compiler.
*shrug* They've been dragging their heels for years, claiming that there's no practical way to do it, that the quality is inferior, etc., etc. And now there's a way to generate bytecode that can be executed on the GPU and return predictable results. I'm sure someone who knows assembler can figure out a simple FIFO or IPC / shared memory arrangement... At this point, they can't hide behind technical hurdles: It's clear GPUs can be used, they just don't want to because they're stuck up.
Maybe now the x264 developers will add GPU support and we'll finally have a solution for video encoding that uses the processor and GPUs in parallel. Here's to hoping... :\
The protocols on these systems aren't encrypted. It's entirely possible that the device and tech needed to decode it are very similar if not identical to what would be required to make modifications to the device. Maybe that's the reason the manufacturer doesn't want to give the patient direct access...
It seems weird that a patient can't get access to data about his own heart.
No more weird than your stem cells and DNA being patented. In fact, according to intellectual property law, you don't own your body, or any of the parts implanted in it... it's all covered by a patchwork of patents on genetic materials and derived medical uses. You should be careful with yourself... it's a felony to damage government property... Or was that corporations? I confuse the two so much these days... (-_-)