As the GP said, only if the company is bankrupt, and then you won't be buying the company, just the assets. In this case the company was bought, so there was no bankruptcy and the liabilities went to the new owner.
Any company that went through bankruptcy is gone and cannot be bought. Yes, their assets can be sold, but that was not the case here. The company was bought.
He is unfortunately right. Doing what the majority wants is called democracy. It is far from being a perfect system, but it is still better than the alternatives.
Education's purpose may go through teaching people what they do not want to learn, but in a democratic country it can never be teaching people what the majority does not want taught.
Don't take me wrongly, I am Atheist and I strongly defend that it is a very bad idea to mix religion and classrooms, but in a democratic regimen there is simply no other way if that is why the majority wants.
South America has modern democracies in almost all countries and still all of them can give these guarantees. Sweden could give these guarantees too by granting him immunity to extradition, at the very least in the same way witnesses are granted immunity when they make an agreement to snitch someone else. All it would be required would be political will to do so.
No charges were ever presented. He is not charged over anything. Sweden authorities just asked to talk to him, and apparently refused to do so when offered a change by the Ecuadorian government.
I can guarantee he is not overjoyed about staying locked in an Embassy and being a political refugee in a third world country, but he has absolutely no other sensible choice here. Better to go to bed with the smaller evil than to useless make himself a martyr in the hands of the bigger one.
Apparently Ecuador can tell him he won't be extradited and give him guarantees about it. But we are talking about a civilized country here, not Sweden or UK.
Whenever you close an embassy, by international law you must provide safe passage to anyone inside. The government can ignore it, but it would be breaking international law and giving an excuse to receive the same treatment in any hostile country where it has diplomats.
The basis of international diplomacy is reciprocity. If you screw up with my guys I will screw up with yours. If UK arbitrarily ignores diplomatic immunity within their soil, they will automatically make their diplomats vulnerable to the same fate throughout the world. It will be a high cost to pay just for Assange.
No it does not. It only requires a prosecutor wanting to get famous by prosecuting a celebrity and a few sycophants politicians in the Swedish government ready to sell him out. And after the Swedish government crapped over its laws to abusively sentence piratebay founders at US orders it is no an unreasonable assumption. That is evidence enough for me that the Swedish government and legal procedures are rotten.
You may keep being naive for all eternity if it suits you, but it is unreasonable to think everybody will follow suit.
No. People don't agree with you when you say it is was informative, and you have given absolutely no argument to convince them otherwise. You are the one who live in the dim sad and lonely world. The world of self-righteousness.
They can do it. What he did can be considered espionage by US draconian laws and that may end in death sentence, legally. But if it will be 30 years in jail or a death sentence is entirely academic. Either possibility is not something anyone sane would be willing to risk without an overwhelmingly good reason.
Slashdot Mirror
As the GP said, only if the company is bankrupt, and then you won't be buying the company, just the assets. In this case the company was bought, so there was no bankruptcy and the liabilities went to the new owner.
Any company that went through bankruptcy is gone and cannot be bought. Yes, their assets can be sold, but that was not the case here. The company was bought.
He means the cost to file the action.
He is unfortunately right. Doing what the majority wants is called democracy. It is far from being a perfect system, but it is still better than the alternatives.
Education's purpose may go through teaching people what they do not want to learn, but in a democratic country it can never be teaching people what the majority does not want taught.
Don't take me wrongly, I am Atheist and I strongly defend that it is a very bad idea to mix religion and classrooms, but in a democratic regimen there is simply no other way if that is why the majority wants.
South America has modern democracies in almost all countries and still all of them can give these guarantees. Sweden could give these guarantees too by granting him immunity to extradition, at the very least in the same way witnesses are granted immunity when they make an agreement to snitch someone else. All it would be required would be political will to do so.
No I am not. I am not an illegal file sharer either, fortunately, or I would be in process of being extradited to US too. ;).
Ummm... South America?
No charges were ever presented. He is not charged over anything. Sweden authorities just asked to talk to him, and apparently refused to do so when offered a change by the Ecuadorian government.
Which obviously was not the case here.
US won't likely go to war with any South America nation. Nothing to gain and too much to lose.
I can guarantee he is not overjoyed about staying locked in an Embassy and being a political refugee in a third world country, but he has absolutely no other sensible choice here. Better to go to bed with the smaller evil than to useless make himself a martyr in the hands of the bigger one.
Apparently Ecuador can tell him he won't be extradited and give him guarantees about it. But we are talking about a civilized country here, not Sweden or UK.
Sweden refused to question him in the Embassy. Sweden is not interested about questioning anyone. It is obviously a sham.
The law is a UK law. It would be a violation of International law regardless.
Their diplomatic protection can't be legally lifted without granting them safe passage to Ecuador and that includes Assange if he is given Asylum.
Whenever you close an embassy, by international law you must provide safe passage to anyone inside. The government can ignore it, but it would be breaking international law and giving an excuse to receive the same treatment in any hostile country where it has diplomats.
It has the right to do so, as long as it provides safe passage to anyone inside it to Ecuador...
The basis of international diplomacy is reciprocity. If you screw up with my guys I will screw up with yours. If UK arbitrarily ignores diplomatic immunity within their soil, they will automatically make their diplomats vulnerable to the same fate throughout the world. It will be a high cost to pay just for Assange.
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...
Fine, send someone to question him in the embassy as offered by the Ecuadorian government.
It is not that simple. If it was the Libyan embassy would have been closed and the Libyan shooters arrested in 1984.
No it does not. It only requires a prosecutor wanting to get famous by prosecuting a celebrity and a few sycophants politicians in the Swedish government ready to sell him out. And after the Swedish government crapped over its laws to abusively sentence piratebay founders at US orders it is no an unreasonable assumption. That is evidence enough for me that the Swedish government and legal procedures are rotten.
You may keep being naive for all eternity if it suits you, but it is unreasonable to think everybody will follow suit.
No. People don't agree with you when you say it is was informative, and you have given absolutely no argument to convince them otherwise. You are the one who live in the dim sad and lonely world. The world of self-righteousness.
No they were not. I've never seen any tablet like device being thrown away in the trash or recycled in any way in Star Trek shows.
They can do it. What he did can be considered espionage by US draconian laws and that may end in death sentence, legally. But if it will be 30 years in jail or a death sentence is entirely academic. Either possibility is not something anyone sane would be willing to risk without an overwhelmingly good reason.