The 1954 OAS convention pertains to how you treat parties granted political asylum when they haven't physically left the territorial jurisdiction of a specific country. Asange is in the UK not the US, and unless Ecuador specifically planned on taking Assange through the US' jurisdiction on the way to Ecuador the US's honoring the treaty would have no impact whatsoever at all on the situation.
Jesus fuck- there is so much real and accurate information out there that there is no reason not to know what it was about.....
The reason congress was involved is because the president lied to a judge during a deposition concerning a sexual harassment claim against him. If you lied while under oath in a deposition, you would be in jail not worrying about congress wanting to talk to you at all. The part about the blowjob is ancillary to the point- it was what the lie was concerning. The ability to ask the question resulting in the lie was created by Clinton himself as one of his first laws he signed in office allowed it. It expanded the discovery abilities in sexual harassment lawsuits to allow the establishment of patterns of behavior by present and past acts outside the specific sexual harassment claim being made.
The entire political nature is little more then a red hearing. It is a distraction from the extradition for claims of rape. No evidence has been put forth that Sweden has any intention of deporting or extraditing assange to the US. It's all assumptions based on fears propagated by Assange in attempts at not having to face the accusations of rape.
lol.. That doesn't mean there was no sexual assault. It just means that one prosecutor didn't follow through with the accusations and another one did.
How many times have you passed a cop while driving faster then the posted speed limit and the cop never pulled you over or gave a warning instead of a citation? Your speeding wouldn't have disappeared or we now know you weren't speeding, it just would have meant you didn't get busted at that time.
Yes and no. Diplomatic asylum, according to the 1954 OAS treaty mentioned is the same as political asylum except that it grants diplomatic safeguards to the person granted asylum while being transported to the country offering asylum.
In contrast, traditionally diplomats receiving diplomatic privileges like entering and leaving the country, not having certain items inspected, immunity from most violations of laws and such generally have a process of clearances and such before a country would honor their privileges. The idea of diplomatic immunity comes from central and south American countries who's governments would change by a coup or revolution or whatever else frequently. Another country could give political asylum to the old government or anyone they saw fit to receive it, and they would become effective diplomats and given safe passage out of the country under the control of the state granting asylum.
It's not really that ACs have become more intelligent, its that whenever someone seems to say anything truthful but damaging to some predetermined world view, they get all their comments down moded and their karma trashed by idiots who can't handle the truth or want to bury it in the score system. They generally use overrated as it doesn't get metta modded and they open your comments page and start going down the list. If your karma is bad, this will even stop you from posting too.
This means that a lot of otherwise logged in people will hit the post anonymously button to avoid those buthurt buffoons clown raping their posts. Of course./ could stop that from happening by simply limiting the number of times someone could mod a specific account within a certain amount of time, but it seems the editors and staff are happy with the outcomes.
Sigh.. The US constitution was only ratified with the expectation and provision of 12 amendments, 11 of which have been ratified being so ratified. The first 10 amendments to be ratified by the states is considered the bill of rights and include the 9th and 10th amendments you mention.
I think you are trying to make a point that doesn't exist by claiming state's right wasn't a consideration to begin with. It most certainly was as the 9th and 10th amendments were part of the compromise that allowed the ratification of the constitution and the replacement of the articles of confederation. The argument against the bill of rights was that the federal government is only able to do what the constitution allows so amendments baring it from certain behavior was redundant as they couldn't possess that ability in the first place.
You're talking about the US federal government, to which the states were subordinated? Or the states, to which the counties are subordinated? Or the counties, to which the municipalities are subordinated? You really need to be a little more clear here. If this is more of that "state's rights" bullshit, let me remind you once again: the original and most powerful argument both for and against state's rights was slavery.
Just because someone uses an argument to support something you do not like does not mean that argument is invalid or forever useless.
It was actually state's rights that ended slavery too. If the state's did not have the right to ban slavery, then the north would have been just as divided as the south who specifically left the union out of fears their rights would be removed. In fact, in order for the confederate states to receive their state's rights back after the civil war, they had to sign and/or ratify the 13th and 14th amendment before being recognized as a state of the United States again and not a territory taken. This was done because their immediate inclusion back into the Union would have tipped the number of states needed to ratify both amendments and slavery wouldn't have ended.
I'm not leaving my country just because some assholes think they should be able to torture without criticism. The UN and the International Court are an attempt to bring the world a little closer together. They've had some successes and some failures, but the most important thing is the effort. Turning our back on the UN means turning our back on the rest of the world, all for the sake of some worthless sovereignty?
Sovereignty is not worthless. If you think it is, then you have no concept for what it is and probably shouldn't be talking about it. Sovereignty is what is allowing countries like Germany and Italy to avoid implementing DMCA style laws mandated by the WIPO WPPT and WCT treaties after they signed the treaties. Sovereignty is the very principle stopping the US and the UK from storming foreign countries to pick up Assange or whoever they do not like at the time. It's the very principle that made Afghanistan a war instead of a policeman running over and arresting people.
I'm in the camp that doesn't agree with an international criminal court. Sovereignty is exactly why I am against it. There is no double jeopardy protections for the accused and they allow hearsay evidence, both of which go counter to the US version of due process and constitutional protections. Furthermore, being part of the international criminal court can have the effect of treaties changing and new requirements being imposed with absolutely no interaction of the US or any specific government. The constitution says that congress has to approve of international agreements and allowing treaties to become radically different without the senate agreeing to the changes completely violates the concept of checks and balances placed on the executive.
Nice list, but there are a few inaccuracies. Here are some.
In 1989, no one had heard of a "free speech zone". The entire *country* was a free speech zone.
The 1988 democratic national convention used free speech or protest zones. They have been in existence in one way or another since the 1960's riots in Chicago protesting the DNC.
In 1989, you could go to concerts, amusement parks, nightclubs, and ballparks without being groped by some thug, having to show the contents of your pockets, backpack, or purse to another, going through a metal detector, or being under constant 1984-ish CCTV surveillance.
Every concert I have gone to since the late 1970's had bag inspections and in some cases pat downs looking for Alcohol.
As for being free, we have been less free since the beginning of our country. The entire idea of freedom or land of the free comes from the fact that unless a law makes something illegal, it is automatically legal. This was a departure from other cultures in Europe where the laws actually said what the people could do and there was no assumption of being allowed to do something unless it was already an existing law. With this radically different construct, laws needed to restrict what society found as undesirable or pertinent to the health and progress of society.
You can look at almost any time perion stretching across 25 years and point out how we were less free after the time period. It is simply the nature of progress.
lol.. What can the obama administration do to repeal it? It would take an act of congress to repeal the law. All that Obama could do is refuse to act on it, but there are provisions for congress to sidestep the executive should something like that happen.
Electing representatives does not preclude the will of the people or tyranny of the majority. That was originally in place to ensure the people had a voice in government. There was the executive which was supposed to be a unified front for state policy(read foreign policy) and offer endorsement or rejection over the legislative works, the senate that was supposed to represent the states, and the house of representatives who was supposed to represent the people. In either case, the tyranny of the majority could very well flourish unimpeded because of it. This is especially true now that we directly elect senators instead of states appointing them and they have to pander to a majority of voters.
hmm... so the representatives are not representatives and all the sudden imagine things to do instead of representing the people who put them in office. And the people do not vote these jokers out for imposing this imaginary will over the will of the majority aren't to blame?
Very interesting. Please tell me, is everyone out to get you too?
No, the government is not supposed to promote religion, it doesn't say anything about denying religion. Science is the study of how things are, who gives a fuck whether some people believe otherwise? Why would we do that with evolution and not some lesser-understood principle like gravity?
So you are saying that the government can go around and telling everyone and anyone at their whim that their religion is fake, false, and stupid or make them illegal but they can't say be a Christian or a Muslim or Christians believe this way or whatever. That sounds about stupid in reality. The freedom of religion means the government can't take a position on a religion period. They cannot promote or deny it. Otherwise, you have absolutely no freedom of religion.
Whatever you think about religion, has nothing to do with education standards, and is completely orthogonal to science. Take your bronze age goatherder fairy tales and insert them anally, that they may poison you instead of the minds of children. Religion is a mental illness.
Regardless of what you think about religion, when the government compels children or anyone for that matter by law to attend their education, that education cannot be in a way that violates any of the rights protected by the constitution. If you insist that doesn't matter, then anyone can insist things like the 4th and 5th amendments do not matter and we get crap like indefinite detention and warrentless wiretaps. You simply cannot use government mandated education to impose or deny any religion.
I think a simple generic statement that science uses X for scientific principles because it is fundamentally useful in understanding nature and our environment and others like religions have differing thoughts on the subject that they find useful for their goals would be sufficient enough to solve the entire problem.
The problem seems to be that evolution is presented as fact that disproves all else. This in and of itself would just be a silly spitting match with a religion that insists things were created and you can only find signs of evolution and other contrary principles because of its creation. But when it's state sponsored because children are compelled by law to attend schools and the state demands a minimum amount of curriculum, there are freedom of religion issues when it is taught in a way that says all else, including your religion is wrong. So when the science teacher says evolution is how things came to be and little Johny says my daddy says God created everything, instead of saying your dad is an idiot and causing the big problem we have, he science teacher can simply say, well, this is how science does it and science finds it useful, that is how your dad and his religion does it and they might find it useful.
What exactly is so fundamentally sacred about science that you think it should be enshrined far from contamination?
I ask not because I disagree, but get nervous by the way you say it.
Also, when science is saying something directly contrary to any religious claim, shouldn't it be tempered with an admission that it is the scientific explanation and that other people hold beliefs contrary but science uses evolution as a foundation for many other parts of science when its the government saying it?
Whatever you think about science, the government is not allowed to promote or deny a religion. This is after all what this is about, the position a government is taking, not science itself or the validity of it.
This cuts both ways. If they cannot support a religion, they cannot deny or disenfranchise one either. If teaching evolution is the government saying creation is wrong, its just as off limits as the government teaching creationism or anything else.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" means more then not saying a prayer before class.
I'm pretty sure he understands what it is, but like me, i'm not sure why you think it matters?
We elect representatives to serve the public interest and as long as the public wants something like, then it functions the very same as described. Could it be that there is no constitution authority for the federal government to be involved in education and that it is a state's sovereign right?
Even US Marines with buttloads of weapons, if holed up in an isolated foreign embassy, can only slightly delay the inevitable, and most likely insure nobody inside is left alive. The CIA isn't exactly batting a thousand these days. Chavez' rise to power is only one example in S.A. alone, never mind the miscalls in the Middle East, particularly in regard to the "democracies" and "enlightened governance" that were to emerge from the so-called "Arab Spring".
Delaying is all they need. Evacuating the embassy could happen pretty easily within an hour or so in most places. Especially if all this talk turns into preparation for the inevitable. They wouldn't be too worried about violating air space or anything as the storming would be considered an act of war for the most part.
Remember, this would be a foreign government with access to military hardware, not angry college students. Even if one grants the embassy defenders with the ability to repel an armored assault by tanks, unless the embassy also has extensive air defense capabilities and is deep underground, a couple of dumb 1,000-lb bombs or barrages of artillery/mortars and/or unguided HE/AP cluster-rockets commonly found on small military attack helos would pretty much end things.
Most embassies have elaborate tunnel systems and bunkers in them with safe rooms. They wouldn't really need to ride a war out, they would only need to defend themselves for about an hour or two. If they show with tanks and the full might of their military, I'm betting they will not put up a fight at all and just become prisoners which would be just cause for an invasion to get them back or dethrone another government in retaliation if they get harmed. Of course the rallying cry back in the US will be kill them all and let god sort it out, nuke the entire country and so on. One thing that perks up rednecks in an election more then anything else is a threat or talk of good ass kicking in which you will find all people trying to avoid us doing it to others will not get elected/reelected.
Granted, taken alone it wouldn't be that big a deal. But, it's not taken alone, but in addition and in contrast with past treatment and behaviors. A number of S. American nations are already moving towards closer military and political cooperation with enemies of US/UK/Western interests.
I still doubt it would happen over something like this. You have to remember, the Ecuadorian government is trying to thwart UK law and jurisprudence by offering asylum to someone who is technically still in the UK's territorial boundaries. This is tantamount to the US or UK or any other country some how legally entering a third country, grasping a hold of someone wanted by that country, telling them, they have him and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it, then being shocked and amazed by when they say "oh, yeah? watch this."
I doubt too many other countries would look at the third party country as the bad guys there. It simply isn't the big "oh no you didn't" that it is being made out to be.
I'm betting you will not be able to mention one single incident where we gave anyone asylum while still in the country and actively being searched for by the country's government and we came right out stating we had them and weren't giving them back. Even the blind Chinese guy who sought asylum at the US consulate in China a few months back was handed back over to the Chinese government before eventually being transported to the US under asylum.
The fact of the matter is, we get them out of the country first, then let it known that we gave them asylum. This is completely different then what is happening right now.
IF they retaliate, I'm sure it would end in war. The biggest reason the Brits are threatening it is to save face from an embassy within their territorial borders purposely thwarting the politicians from within their own country.
If Assange was already out of the country, they wouldn't care a damn bit. The problem is, he is inside the country, lost with the legal system, then had another country say hide from your problems here without him actually leaving the country. No other country would stand for it. Try it in the US and I guarantee the embassy will be gone. Try it in Russia or China and some of the diplomats would be gone too.
Assange parading around anywhere in plain sight would just mean a simple CIA extraction operation. Don't fool yourself, he will be in hiding the rest of his (short) life if he doesn't deal with this. You can celebrate that all day long too.
The US has nothing to worry about. We have plenty of CIA operatives in south America that we can take care of about anything coming our way. Not to mention the Marine guards stationed at our embassies have access to quite a bit of weaponry.
The UK might or might not be concerned, but I can see it being justified on the world stage where a fleeing suspect is offered protection within the territorial borders of a country simply because of diplomatic norms. That right there is a slap to the British government. If it happened in the US, I'm pretty sure we would storm the castle too. In fact, depending on what the perp is accused of, regular citizens might storm the building and take him into custody.
As for South American countries allying with our enemies, I doubt that would happen over something like this. They have too many perks from allying with us to mess it up over some country wanting to protect an accused rapist from being charged in Sweden.
Yeah, because everyone who doesn't think and act like you is somehow a bad or lesser person and we should ridicule and badger everyone who doesn't conform to your expectations right? Way to entirely miss the point while demonstrating why it was made.
Now that's out of the way, maybe we can do something about all these poor black people. I'll do the openly racist thing and you can pretend to be helping them by building highrise apartments one the side of town furthest away from the jobs and everything else important to us so that they can be relocated to. You can even get the cops to harass them into moving to where they belong. We will call it the projects and claim its a civil right to place them off to the side with dignity.
Yeah, I like this political correctness thing a lot more now. You fucking retarded buffoon. Which is better, knowing who is screwing you so you can do something about it or pressuring everyone to hide it so it gets passed off as something else?
Slashdot Mirror
He could but it wouldn't make any difference.
The 1954 OAS convention pertains to how you treat parties granted political asylum when they haven't physically left the territorial jurisdiction of a specific country. Asange is in the UK not the US, and unless Ecuador specifically planned on taking Assange through the US' jurisdiction on the way to Ecuador the US's honoring the treaty would have no impact whatsoever at all on the situation.
Jesus fuck- there is so much real and accurate information out there that there is no reason not to know what it was about.....
The reason congress was involved is because the president lied to a judge during a deposition concerning a sexual harassment claim against him. If you lied while under oath in a deposition, you would be in jail not worrying about congress wanting to talk to you at all. The part about the blowjob is ancillary to the point- it was what the lie was concerning. The ability to ask the question resulting in the lie was created by Clinton himself as one of his first laws he signed in office allowed it. It expanded the discovery abilities in sexual harassment lawsuits to allow the establishment of patterns of behavior by present and past acts outside the specific sexual harassment claim being made.
The entire political nature is little more then a red hearing. It is a distraction from the extradition for claims of rape. No evidence has been put forth that Sweden has any intention of deporting or extraditing assange to the US. It's all assumptions based on fears propagated by Assange in attempts at not having to face the accusations of rape.
lol.. That doesn't mean there was no sexual assault. It just means that one prosecutor didn't follow through with the accusations and another one did.
How many times have you passed a cop while driving faster then the posted speed limit and the cop never pulled you over or gave a warning instead of a citation? Your speeding wouldn't have disappeared or we now know you weren't speeding, it just would have meant you didn't get busted at that time.
Yes and no. Diplomatic asylum, according to the 1954 OAS treaty mentioned is the same as political asylum except that it grants diplomatic safeguards to the person granted asylum while being transported to the country offering asylum.
In contrast, traditionally diplomats receiving diplomatic privileges like entering and leaving the country, not having certain items inspected, immunity from most violations of laws and such generally have a process of clearances and such before a country would honor their privileges. The idea of diplomatic immunity comes from central and south American countries who's governments would change by a coup or revolution or whatever else frequently. Another country could give political asylum to the old government or anyone they saw fit to receive it, and they would become effective diplomats and given safe passage out of the country under the control of the state granting asylum.
It's not really that ACs have become more intelligent, its that whenever someone seems to say anything truthful but damaging to some predetermined world view, they get all their comments down moded and their karma trashed by idiots who can't handle the truth or want to bury it in the score system. They generally use overrated as it doesn't get metta modded and they open your comments page and start going down the list. If your karma is bad, this will even stop you from posting too.
This means that a lot of otherwise logged in people will hit the post anonymously button to avoid those buthurt buffoons clown raping their posts. Of course ./ could stop that from happening by simply limiting the number of times someone could mod a specific account within a certain amount of time, but it seems the editors and staff are happy with the outcomes.
Sigh.. The US constitution was only ratified with the expectation and provision of 12 amendments, 11 of which have been ratified being so ratified. The first 10 amendments to be ratified by the states is considered the bill of rights and include the 9th and 10th amendments you mention.
I think you are trying to make a point that doesn't exist by claiming state's right wasn't a consideration to begin with. It most certainly was as the 9th and 10th amendments were part of the compromise that allowed the ratification of the constitution and the replacement of the articles of confederation. The argument against the bill of rights was that the federal government is only able to do what the constitution allows so amendments baring it from certain behavior was redundant as they couldn't possess that ability in the first place.
Just because someone uses an argument to support something you do not like does not mean that argument is invalid or forever useless.
It was actually state's rights that ended slavery too. If the state's did not have the right to ban slavery, then the north would have been just as divided as the south who specifically left the union out of fears their rights would be removed. In fact, in order for the confederate states to receive their state's rights back after the civil war, they had to sign and/or ratify the 13th and 14th amendment before being recognized as a state of the United States again and not a territory taken. This was done because their immediate inclusion back into the Union would have tipped the number of states needed to ratify both amendments and slavery wouldn't have ended.
Sovereignty is not worthless. If you think it is, then you have no concept for what it is and probably shouldn't be talking about it. Sovereignty is what is allowing countries like Germany and Italy to avoid implementing DMCA style laws mandated by the WIPO WPPT and WCT treaties after they signed the treaties. Sovereignty is the very principle stopping the US and the UK from storming foreign countries to pick up Assange or whoever they do not like at the time. It's the very principle that made Afghanistan a war instead of a policeman running over and arresting people.
I'm in the camp that doesn't agree with an international criminal court. Sovereignty is exactly why I am against it. There is no double jeopardy protections for the accused and they allow hearsay evidence, both of which go counter to the US version of due process and constitutional protections. Furthermore, being part of the international criminal court can have the effect of treaties changing and new requirements being imposed with absolutely no interaction of the US or any specific government. The constitution says that congress has to approve of international agreements and allowing treaties to become radically different without the senate agreeing to the changes completely violates the concept of checks and balances placed on the executive.
Nice list, but there are a few inaccuracies. Here are some.
The 1988 democratic national convention used free speech or protest zones. They have been in existence in one way or another since the 1960's riots in Chicago protesting the DNC.
Every concert I have gone to since the late 1970's had bag inspections and in some cases pat downs looking for Alcohol.
As for being free, we have been less free since the beginning of our country. The entire idea of freedom or land of the free comes from the fact that unless a law makes something illegal, it is automatically legal. This was a departure from other cultures in Europe where the laws actually said what the people could do and there was no assumption of being allowed to do something unless it was already an existing law. With this radically different construct, laws needed to restrict what society found as undesirable or pertinent to the health and progress of society.
You can look at almost any time perion stretching across 25 years and point out how we were less free after the time period. It is simply the nature of progress.
lol.. What can the obama administration do to repeal it? It would take an act of congress to repeal the law. All that Obama could do is refuse to act on it, but there are provisions for congress to sidestep the executive should something like that happen.
Obama did not repeal the law.
Electing representatives does not preclude the will of the people or tyranny of the majority. That was originally in place to ensure the people had a voice in government. There was the executive which was supposed to be a unified front for state policy(read foreign policy) and offer endorsement or rejection over the legislative works, the senate that was supposed to represent the states, and the house of representatives who was supposed to represent the people. In either case, the tyranny of the majority could very well flourish unimpeded because of it. This is especially true now that we directly elect senators instead of states appointing them and they have to pander to a majority of voters.
hmm... so the representatives are not representatives and all the sudden imagine things to do instead of representing the people who put them in office. And the people do not vote these jokers out for imposing this imaginary will over the will of the majority aren't to blame?
Very interesting. Please tell me, is everyone out to get you too?
So you are saying that the government can go around and telling everyone and anyone at their whim that their religion is fake, false, and stupid or make them illegal but they can't say be a Christian or a Muslim or Christians believe this way or whatever. That sounds about stupid in reality. The freedom of religion means the government can't take a position on a religion period. They cannot promote or deny it. Otherwise, you have absolutely no freedom of religion.
Regardless of what you think about religion, when the government compels children or anyone for that matter by law to attend their education, that education cannot be in a way that violates any of the rights protected by the constitution. If you insist that doesn't matter, then anyone can insist things like the 4th and 5th amendments do not matter and we get crap like indefinite detention and warrentless wiretaps. You simply cannot use government mandated education to impose or deny any religion.
who elects the representatives if not the majority? Representative representation doesn't in and of itself avoid the tyranny of the majority.
I think a simple generic statement that science uses X for scientific principles because it is fundamentally useful in understanding nature and our environment and others like religions have differing thoughts on the subject that they find useful for their goals would be sufficient enough to solve the entire problem.
The problem seems to be that evolution is presented as fact that disproves all else. This in and of itself would just be a silly spitting match with a religion that insists things were created and you can only find signs of evolution and other contrary principles because of its creation. But when it's state sponsored because children are compelled by law to attend schools and the state demands a minimum amount of curriculum, there are freedom of religion issues when it is taught in a way that says all else, including your religion is wrong. So when the science teacher says evolution is how things came to be and little Johny says my daddy says God created everything, instead of saying your dad is an idiot and causing the big problem we have, he science teacher can simply say, well, this is how science does it and science finds it useful, that is how your dad and his religion does it and they might find it useful.
What exactly is so fundamentally sacred about science that you think it should be enshrined far from contamination?
I ask not because I disagree, but get nervous by the way you say it.
Also, when science is saying something directly contrary to any religious claim, shouldn't it be tempered with an admission that it is the scientific explanation and that other people hold beliefs contrary but science uses evolution as a foundation for many other parts of science when its the government saying it?
Whatever you think about science, the government is not allowed to promote or deny a religion. This is after all what this is about, the position a government is taking, not science itself or the validity of it.
This cuts both ways. If they cannot support a religion, they cannot deny or disenfranchise one either. If teaching evolution is the government saying creation is wrong, its just as off limits as the government teaching creationism or anything else.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" means more then not saying a prayer before class.
I'm pretty sure he understands what it is, but like me, i'm not sure why you think it matters?
We elect representatives to serve the public interest and as long as the public wants something like, then it functions the very same as described. Could it be that there is no constitution authority for the federal government to be involved in education and that it is a state's sovereign right?
what exactly is in the constitution that makes you think it tries to avoid the tyranny of the majority other then the electoral college?
Delaying is all they need. Evacuating the embassy could happen pretty easily within an hour or so in most places. Especially if all this talk turns into preparation for the inevitable. They wouldn't be too worried about violating air space or anything as the storming would be considered an act of war for the most part.
Most embassies have elaborate tunnel systems and bunkers in them with safe rooms. They wouldn't really need to ride a war out, they would only need to defend themselves for about an hour or two. If they show with tanks and the full might of their military, I'm betting they will not put up a fight at all and just become prisoners which would be just cause for an invasion to get them back or dethrone another government in retaliation if they get harmed. Of course the rallying cry back in the US will be kill them all and let god sort it out, nuke the entire country and so on. One thing that perks up rednecks in an election more then anything else is a threat or talk of good ass kicking in which you will find all people trying to avoid us doing it to others will not get elected/reelected.
I still doubt it would happen over something like this. You have to remember, the Ecuadorian government is trying to thwart UK law and jurisprudence by offering asylum to someone who is technically still in the UK's territorial boundaries. This is tantamount to the US or UK or any other country some how legally entering a third country, grasping a hold of someone wanted by that country, telling them, they have him and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it, then being shocked and amazed by when they say "oh, yeah? watch this."
I doubt too many other countries would look at the third party country as the bad guys there. It simply isn't the big "oh no you didn't" that it is being made out to be.
Name some who have done that.
I'm betting you will not be able to mention one single incident where we gave anyone asylum while still in the country and actively being searched for by the country's government and we came right out stating we had them and weren't giving them back. Even the blind Chinese guy who sought asylum at the US consulate in China a few months back was handed back over to the Chinese government before eventually being transported to the US under asylum.
The fact of the matter is, we get them out of the country first, then let it known that we gave them asylum. This is completely different then what is happening right now.
IF they retaliate, I'm sure it would end in war. The biggest reason the Brits are threatening it is to save face from an embassy within their territorial borders purposely thwarting the politicians from within their own country.
If Assange was already out of the country, they wouldn't care a damn bit. The problem is, he is inside the country, lost with the legal system, then had another country say hide from your problems here without him actually leaving the country. No other country would stand for it. Try it in the US and I guarantee the embassy will be gone. Try it in Russia or China and some of the diplomats would be gone too.
Assange parading around anywhere in plain sight would just mean a simple CIA extraction operation. Don't fool yourself, he will be in hiding the rest of his (short) life if he doesn't deal with this. You can celebrate that all day long too.
The US has nothing to worry about. We have plenty of CIA operatives in south America that we can take care of about anything coming our way. Not to mention the Marine guards stationed at our embassies have access to quite a bit of weaponry.
The UK might or might not be concerned, but I can see it being justified on the world stage where a fleeing suspect is offered protection within the territorial borders of a country simply because of diplomatic norms. That right there is a slap to the British government. If it happened in the US, I'm pretty sure we would storm the castle too. In fact, depending on what the perp is accused of, regular citizens might storm the building and take him into custody.
As for South American countries allying with our enemies, I doubt that would happen over something like this. They have too many perks from allying with us to mess it up over some country wanting to protect an accused rapist from being charged in Sweden.
Yeah, because everyone who doesn't think and act like you is somehow a bad or lesser person and we should ridicule and badger everyone who doesn't conform to your expectations right? Way to entirely miss the point while demonstrating why it was made.
Now that's out of the way, maybe we can do something about all these poor black people. I'll do the openly racist thing and you can pretend to be helping them by building highrise apartments one the side of town furthest away from the jobs and everything else important to us so that they can be relocated to. You can even get the cops to harass them into moving to where they belong. We will call it the projects and claim its a civil right to place them off to the side with dignity.
Yeah, I like this political correctness thing a lot more now. You fucking retarded buffoon. Which is better, knowing who is screwing you so you can do something about it or pressuring everyone to hide it so it gets passed off as something else?