Argonath RPG - A World of its own
Argonath RPG Community => Speakerbox => World and local news => Topic started by: SafetyMoose on August 16, 2012, 06:37:12 am
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623)
Ecuador has accused the UK of making a "threat" to enter its embassy in London to arrest Wikileaks' Julian Assange.
Mr Assange took refuge at the embassy in June to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over assault and rape claims, which he denies.
Ecuador Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino also said a decision on the 41-year-old's bid for political asylum had been made and would be announced later.
The Foreign Office said it could revoke the embassy's diplomatic status.
In a statement issued as Mr Patino spoke, it said the UK had a "legal obligation" to extradite Mr Assange.
The Wikileaks website published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments, particularly the US, in 2010, and Mr Assange says he fears Sweden will pass him on to the American authorities.
A number of police officers are outside the Ecuadorean embassy, in Knightsbridge, where some of Mr Assange's supporters have gathered behind a police cordon.
Demonstrators also protested outside the British embassy in Ecuador's capital. Images from Quito showed protesters holding signs saying "We are sovereign, not colonies" and a union jack being stepped on.
'Hostile act'
At a news conference in Quito on Wednesday, Mr Patino said a letter from the UK government was delivered through a British embassy official.
"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.
"Ecuador rejects in the most emphatic terms the explicit threat of the British official communication."
He said such a threat was "improper of a democratic, civilised and rule abiding country".
"If the measure announced in the British official communication is enacted, it will be interpreted by Ecuador as an unacceptable, unfriendly and hostile act and as an attempt against our sovereignty. It would force us to respond," he said.
"The Foreign Office said it could revoke the embassy's diplomatic status."
oh you brits :lol:
-
news article....
oh you brits :lol:
Psst Moose, or they will come and make Canada colony once again.
-
He is seen as a criminal wanted by the USA, so we have the right to go and arrest him.
-
He is seen as a criminal wanted by the USA, so we have the right to go and arrest him.
Of course, because your country is a puppet of USA, not?
-
He is seen as a criminal wanted by the USA, so we have the right to go and arrest him.
An embassy is formally the territory of the country residing there.
Going and arresting would formally be an attack on another country, there for an act of war.
Ecuador has decided to grant Mr Assange political asylum, meaning he now holds an official Ecuadorian status other than that of visitor.
Storming the embassy would bring the UK down to the level of a dictatorship.
-
Ecuador has decided to grant Mr Assange political asylum.
Seems provocative to me.
-
An embassy is formally the territory of the country residing there.
Going and arresting would formally be an attack on another country, there for an act of war.
Embassies are not the sovereign territory of the country that occupies the premises; they are business offices protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. They do not have police or courts on the premises.
Here is the section of the Convention that sometimes confuses people into believing that embassies are somehow the soverign soil of the country they represent:
Article 22,
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.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
Since they are actually business offices rather than teeny little countries, there is no application of 'laws of the land.' If an American employee violates US law (by, for example, selling visas) he or she can be ordered back to the US for prosecution, but can't be forced to go. If a local employee does so, he is prosecuted locally, under whatever laws exist in the host country - unless we can trick him into going to the US, where he can be prosecuted under US law.
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf (http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf)
-
Seems provocative to me.
That doesn't mean he can leave UK. Every country has it's laws and ethics, just because UK and USA have a name around, doesn't mean they can violate them.
I honor the Ecuadorian president for this choice because if he was "extradicted" to Sweden, then the same would happen to USA, where he would face martial court and CIA torture.
-
That doesn't mean he can leave UK. Every country has it's laws and ethics, just because UK and USA have a name around, doesn't mean they can violate them.
I honor the Ecuadorian president for this choice because if he was "extradicted" to Sweden, then the same would happen to USA, where he would face martial court and CIA torture.
In theory he can. If the Ecuadorian Embassy would transport him in their car to a diplomatic plane, as you can read from Jubin's post above they would not be allowed to arrest him.
-
Of course, because your country is a puppet of USA, not?
Allies. I think both of us have done a fair share of 'puppeting'.
-
He is seen as a criminal wanted by the USA, so we have the right to go and arrest him.
He is Indicted by Sweden, not the US.
In theory he can. If the Ecuadorian Embassy would transport him in their car to a diplomatic plane, as you can read from Jubin's post above they would not be allowed to arrest him.
Yes, in theory. The second he exits the car, he can be arrested as he steps back into our jurisdiction. However, if they were to try and ship him out in a crate as Nigeria have tried to do, they could get him out that way as a diplomatic bag can not be opened or searched.
-
inb4 political shitstorm
-
If he was arrested by the UK the US would not get his hands on him, Sweden gets first dibs. Then again, it isn't just the US that wants his head for his leaks. While the site exposed the US, it also exposed communications with other countries.
He isn't free of his crimes from Sweden, he can only play hide and seek for so long before justice gets to him.
-
If he was arrested by the UK the US would not get his hands on him, Sweden gets first dibs. Then again, it isn't just the US that wants his head for his leaks. While the site exposed the US, it also exposed communications with other countries.
He isn't free of his crimes from Sweden, he can only play hide and seek for so long before justice gets to him.
I give you a few nations that he can hide and US wouldn't follow him into, due to international treaties and major incidents it would cause if it tried some kind of Spec op to grab him.
China- The US wont bite the hand of the nation it gets all its cheep crap from.
Iran- The US is too busy in the nations on its borders to focus on a 3rd unpopular war, Plus The US would let Israel lose on them long before any real threat.
Russia- Cold war may be over but old wounds dont heal just because Knight rider sang on a broken wall. Doubt Russia would take kindly to any western nations Spec Ops in there nation.
N.Korea- Yeah the 50 year Cease Fire has been good so far no one want the war that hasn't ended to sir-back up.
Mexico- Irony but the US for one already failed in Columbia with massive drug cartels and Mexico is full of em. 2nd some lucky fugitives make it here, the only way they get caught is by the US offering a high price bounty in witch someone in said nation might be living a rich man if he were to "collect the bounty" can you say corrupt police force/bounty hunters. 3rd US signed a trearty back in World War 1 that pretty much stated the US would not interfere with Mexico as long as it did try to interfere with the US, this treaty was made as Germany in world war 1 tried to make Mexico war the US and open a new front and have Mexico reclaim its lands lost in the Mexican-American War(LOL no need for that they took back there lands w/o force) and since the US also has a Free Trade Agreement, and with the US economy being crap losing that would be a huge dent in the market.
Also just a general rule of politics attacking ones neighbor almost never gets any support, unless you find someone who already dislikes said neighbor and by then you have a new found ally.
-
Cubaaaa
-
I give you a few nations that he can hide and US wouldn't follow him into, due to international treaties and major incidents it would cause if it tried some kind of Spec op to grab him.
China- The US wont bite the hand of the nation it gets all its cheep crap from.
Iran- The US is too busy in the nations on its borders to focus on a 3rd unpopular war, Plus The US would let Israel lose on them long before any real threat.
Russia- Cold war may be over but old wounds dont heal just because Knight rider sang on a broken wall. Doubt Russia would take kindly to any western nations Spec Ops in there nation.
N.Korea- Yeah the 50 year Cease Fire has been good so far no one want the war that hasn't ended to sir-back up.
Mexico- Irony but the US for one already failed in Columbia with massive drug cartels and Mexico is full of em. 2nd some lucky fugitives make it here, the only way they get caught is by the US offering a high price bounty in witch someone in said nation might be living a rich man if he were to "collect the bounty" can you say corrupt police force/bounty hunters. 3rd US signed a trearty back in World War 1 that pretty much stated the US would not interfere with Mexico as long as it did try to interfere with the US, this treaty was made as Germany in world war 1 tried to make Mexico war the US and open a new front and have Mexico reclaim its lands lost in the Mexican-American War(LOL no need for that they took back there lands w/o force) and since the US also has a Free Trade Agreement, and with the US economy being crap losing that would be a huge dent in the market.
Also just a general rule of politics attacking ones neighbor almost never gets any support, unless you find someone who already dislikes said neighbor and by then you have a new found ally.
China - Wrong. China will arrest and extradite.
Iran - Will not comply with extradite order, but may arrest him for entering.
Russia - Wrong. Russia will arrest and extradite.
N. Korea - Will not comply with extradite, but will arrest for him for entering.
Mexico - Wrong. Mexico will arrest and extradite.
Cuba - Wrong. Cub will arrest and extradite.
There is thousands of countries who have extradition agreements via the United Nations, and many more via private agreements. Even if the US is the one to get him first due to limited number of countries who may have this extradition agreement with Sweden, the United States will extradite him to Sweden and it will not be US or Swedish authorities who arrest him, extradition orders work by the local law enforcement agencies getting the confirmation to arrest the subject by their government. Most of the countries you've listed will comply and execute a extradition request without question.
-
he can hide in my basement
-
he can hide in my basement
The Netherlands has extradition agreement with both United States and Sweden. He would be arrested on his charges and extradited. You would be arrested for aiding and abetting a fugitive. :cool:
-
The Netherlands has extradition agreement with both United States and Sweden. He would be arrested on his charges and extradited. You would be arrested for aiding and abetting a fugitive. :cool:
I'm pretty sure Stragio wouldn't have advertised the fact... It'd be undercover harboring.
-
Cubaaaa
Nah thats where we hold all thoem "Terrorist" from Al Qaeda not a very safe nation to hide form the US if its already got a Naval base in it.
-
In Lithuania he would propably get arrested as soon as he would enter the country, but not given away to UK
-
In Lithuania he would propably get arrested as soon as he would enter the country, but not given away to UK
Wrong. Lithuania and the UK have extradition agreements.
-
Wrong. Lithuania and the UK have extradition agreements.
Not that it matters, as he is wanted by the Sweden and CIA.
-
he is wanted by the CIA.
Provide a source.
Not that it matters
Yes, it does matter, he is wanted by us too you know...
-
Provide a source.
Yes, it does matter, he is wanted by us too you know...
No need to provide a source that he's wanted by Sweden, however I recommend wikileaks.com as a source
He is not wanted by the UK. There is a difference between wanted for extradition and wanted for a crime committed in UK. My only guess is that MI6 wants his head badly.
-
No need to provide a source that he's wanted by Sweden, however I recommend wikileaks.com as a source
He is not wanted by the UK. There is a difference between wanted for extradition and wanted for a crime committed in UK. My only guess is that MI6 wants his head badly.
The only reason we want him is to fly him over to Sweden or the USA for them to deal with him. The crime that he is wanted for over in those two countries is far bigger than what the UK wants him for.
-
No need to provide a source that he's wanted by Sweden, however I recommend wikileaks.com as a source
He is not wanted by the UK. There is a difference between wanted for extradition and wanted for a crime committed in UK. My only guess is that MI6 wants his head badly.
I want you to provide a source saying he is wanted by the CIA, because to me it seems that you are making this up on the fly.
Yes, he IS wanted by the UK, he has committed a CRIME by entering the embassy, he VIOLATED his BAIL conditions = prison, however as the crimes he is wanted for in Sweden are worse, he will be extradited their rather than face conviction here (most likely).
-
There's a 70 percent of possibility that Lithuania would rather give him to Sweden than to UK.
-
as he is wanted by the CIA.
FBI.
-
FBI.
CIA. Wrong
FBI. Wrong.
He is wanted by the United States Department of Justice to answer to the charges of Espionage. As of now, The United States considers him a terrorist as his acts have crippled United States foreign affairs and has placed the lives of CIA operatives and their families in danger.
#factcheck101
Learn the facts before you speak.
There's a 70 percent of possibility that Lithuania would rather give him to Sweden than to UK.
The UK wants him right now as part of his extradition order, meaning he has no actual charges in the UK. In simpler terms, the UK only wants him because he is there in their country and Sweden wants him on a silver platter. So Lithuania would have no reason to give him to the UK, as if he isn't in the UK then he isn't their problem.
#factcheck101
Not that it matters, as he is wanted by the Sweden and CIA.
As I said in my first statement.
He is wanted by the United States and Sweden.
The CIA, and Interpol are organizations who have been tasked with finding him and executing an arrest if needed.
The fact remains is that he will not leave Britain in a free pass to his Ecuador.
He will be arrested by UK authorities before he makes it to the car.
-
The United States considers him a terrorist as his acts have crippled United States foreign affairs and has placed the lives of CIA operatives and their families in danger.
Yeah in no time accusations will be waved at Ecuador for harboring terrorism.
And we know what happened to the last country that got accused of harboring terrorism... :neutral:
-
Yeah in no time accusations will be waved at Ecuador for harboring terrorism.
And we know what happened to the last country that got accused of harboring terrorism... :neutral:
Well looking at the facts, he is in a sense a terrorist. By leaking these documents, he has placed lives and affairs in serious danger. Some of these documents can lead to serious issues to the US and many other countries around the world, including your own.
But none of the such will happen in Ecuador, he will not make it there.
-
The things the bureaucracy will do to curtail freedom of speech.
It's a good thing (for the bureaucrats) that the majority of the population do not understand the implicit step-by-step removal of their freedom as they live under the illusion that the governments are acting in their best interest.
-
Well looking at the facts, he is in a sense a terrorist. By leaking these documents, he has placed lives and affairs in serious danger. Some of these documents can lead to serious issues to the US and many other countries around the world, including your own.
A terrorist getting crucified by people who do what he does a hundred times worse than him.
-
It makes me laugh at the United Kingdoms threat to raid an embassy because we all know if any country even hinted to that the United Kingdom would have troops storming that country, just shows how much of a bully this country really is.
-
It makes me laugh at the United Kingdoms threat to raid an embassy because we all know if any country even hinted to that the United Kingdom would have troops storming that country, just shows how much of a bully this country really is.
Hey man no need to slagg off the UK like that, how does it make this country a bully just because they threaten to enter a building ON OUR OWN SOIL and arrest someone who is pretty much a terrorist seeking safety by political status.. He has to be punished for his crimes, so if the UK want to enter by force and arrest him, they should do it. Just because it's an 'embassy' doesn't mean the country it's on can't go inside.
-
It makes me laugh at the United Kingdoms threat to raid an embassy because we all know if any country even hinted to that the United Kingdom would have troops storming that country, just shows how much of a bully this country really is.
The things the bureaucracy will do to curtail freedom of speech.
It's a good thing (for the bureaucrats) that the majority of the population do not understand the implicit step-by-step removal of their freedom as they live under the illusion that the governments are acting in their best interest.
A terrorist getting crucified by people who do what he does a hundred times worse than him.
Regardless of political views, Espionage is Espionage. You, as do many Americans misinterpret the Bill of Rights, including the first amendment, freedom of speech. This isn't as direct as you can say what ever the fk you want. There are limitations and imposed consequences for stepping out of these parameters in which constitute your "freedom" of speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, in many cases your rights can not be infringed and you have the right to say what ever you want, another part of the bill of rights in really fancy wording says any of the first 10 amendments can be limited, or suppressed under special amended circumstantial situations.
The one this violates in which consitutational right of amendement #1 is revoked is the Espionage Act of 1917.
"SEC. 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall wilfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor... with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds... or the making of loans by or to the United States, or whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully cause... or incite... insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct... the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag... or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States, or any language intended to bring the form of government... or the Constitution... or the military or naval forces... or the flag... of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute... or shall wilfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall wilfully... urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things... necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war... and whoever shall wilfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favour the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both...."
It is this, he is wanted for.
I don't get why everything has to be a political debate with you two. A manager and Admin are unaware of this:
Discussion regarding "sensitive" topics such as personal matters, religion, politics are not encourage in most cases.
Yet it seems every case you can you make it such.
The fact is, he violated laws. Regardless of you agree or disagree with the countries imposition of those laws. Trust me your countries have them too, or something strikingly similar, no person in any country is allowed to leak their countries classified documents as they are classified for a reason. It isn't even on topic as he isn't going to the US even if he was arrested. So find another topic to try and spark a political debate in as it shouldn't be in here. This is between 3 countries, The United Kingdom, Ecuador, and Sweden as of now. The United States has even come forth stating to him and his legal representatives that they are going to request his extradition from Sweden until after justice in Sweden has been taken.
-
Julian Assange has not gotten this much attention simply because of leaking some government documents. Rather, it is because he, along with WikiLeaks, have become a symbol of the people's right to know, versus the ever-increasing censorship that bureaucracies are slowly enforcing.
I am not just talking about the United States (which was not even mentioned in my last post), but also other bureaucracies.
-
Rather, it is because he, along with WikiLeaks, have become a symbol of the people's right to know, versus the ever-increasing censorship that bureaucracies are slowly enforcing.
Except for the fact that Assange refused to give up absolute power over WikiLeaks during his initial legal struggles when the rape allegations first came out, leading to the self-destruction of the organization as members and even the software architect behind its secure document submission site walked out. Then, he hastily released U.S. cables unabridged, putting people's lives at risk by leaving names of officials, agents, soldiers, whatever uncensored.
-
While I disagree with the lives of the agents, soldiers, and other workers being put at risk, I must say that the officials who shat other countries (which is what embarassed the government after leakage) through cables, got it coming to them.
-
(https://p.twimg.com/A0p9JdtCQAE47yf.jpg)
:rofl:
-
You, as do many Americans misinterpret the Bill of Rights, including the first amendment, freedom of speech. This isn't as direct as you can say what ever the fk you want. There are limitations and imposed consequences for stepping out of these parameters in which constitute your "freedom" of speech.
What is interesting in all of this is not the fact that your constitution is not so direct, but the fact that while it is not so direct the USA has built for itself a very very direct image of freedom.
I don't get why everything has to be a political debate with you two. A manager and Admin are unaware of this:
*quote*
Yet it seems every case you can you make it such.
>most cases
>people discussing a case of diplomatical/political attrition
What do you want us to talk about? The shoes he is wearing while in the embassy?
-
What do you want us to talk about? The shoes he is wearing while in the embassy?
Shoes might contain leaked documents.
-
(https://p.twimg.com/A0p9JdtCQAE47yf.jpg)
:rofl:
I lol'd hard. :lol:
-
What is interesting in all of this is not the fact that your constitution is not so direct, but the fact that while it is not so direct the USA has built for itself a very very direct image of freedom.
>most cases
>people discussing a case of diplomatical/political attrition
What do you want us to talk about? The shoes he is wearing while in the embassy?
You both make claims against the United States, or other governments not even when they aren't even involved in the article or topic also, his Wiki-leaks isn't involved either. This is about a man wanted for rape, just a very infamous and notable for some other major crimes around the world; still forth not really on topic. So, stay on topic for starters.
(https://p.twimg.com/A0p9JdtCQAE47yf.jpg)
:rofl:
:lol:
-
You both make claims against the United States, or other governments not even when they aren't even involved in the article or topic also, his Wiki-leaks isn't involved either. This is about a man wanted for rape, just a very infamous and notable for some other major crimes around the world; still forth not really on topic. So, stay on topic for starters.
We're discussing a man who pissed off the USA - so yes he is related and get over it...
We're discussing a guy whose actions are what caused all the attention on the political asylum subject - so yes it is related and get over it...
Can you stop bossing around what people want to discuss or not?
-
We're discussing a man who pissed off the USA - so yes he is related and get over it...
We're discussing a guy whose actions are what caused all the attention on the political asylum subject - so yes it is related and get over it...
Can you stop bossing around what people want to discuss or not?
Not bossing, just stating the rules. Sorry your vision is too clouded to see it.
I see no point in arguing with you over it, I've learned you have a set of opinions and an attitude that is single visioned without chance of discussion, exactly like you claim the rest of the world is. Ironic.
@JDC, I didn't mean it harshly against you by what I said, its just the problem here isn't American laws nor the laws of any other country in the world nor is it that the US Government thinks the information they are keeping from us and the world is information that is best withheld. It is about a man who has sexually assaulted two innocent people and now that country is seeking justice against him and it so happens the United Kingdom is where he is holding out, in a protected area for the country of Ecuador, an embassy. Now the United Kingdom is tasked with arresting the said suspect before he attempts to flea the country and justice.
Honestly, its avoidable that political discussions happen in this case. But there is no need to attack a country in which views or perspectives are wrong or not seen to your agenda, which again is all you do JayL... again Ironic. While I'm not defending the United States' view here either, I'm for the freedom of information. Do I agree with everything my country says, does, or laws it imposes? No. I disapprove with more of than I approve of. Does this mean I hate my country? fu*k no, I still love my country as every other patriotic person would. So keep that in mind before you take your single viewed stabs at other countries. Just Like you, I'm sure you have your agreements and disagreements with your countries polices and actions; if you don't that'll be 3/3 on irony. Sorry if it came off harsh, but thats the truth. Face it or don't.
As far as on topic. You have one country threatening an act of war against another, but honestly in my opinion I don't see much of a problem, considering Ecuador has 1/6th the population of the United Kingdom and a standing army tripple that of Ecuador, thus Ecuador won't take any action against the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom doesn't move in for political reasons, send in Interpol then, they are protected by more international treaties that Ecuador wouldn't be able to do anything about it as they too are under that same treaty which would allow Interpol to arrest a wanted fugitive in their country, as Interpol does have Julian as one of the most wanted, they have every right to walk in their and arrest him on site.
-
How do we know for sure that the rape charges are not conjured by one of Assange's numerous political enemies?
Thinking logically, setting up a rape case against someone would be an easier approach (less controversy, less mess) than putting him on the FBI/CIA's top wanted list and announcing it for the entire world to see as they did with Bin Laden.
-
How do we know for sure that the rape charges are not conjured by one of Assange's numerous political enemies?
Thinking logically, setting up a rape case against someone would be an easier approach (less controversy, less mess) than putting him on the FBI/CIA's top wanted list and announcing it for the entire world to see as they did with Bin Laden.
This is very possible and sort of likely, considering the timeline as well. These allegations were announced after the major Wikileaks incident which sparked international interest in Assanage, however as I know first hand truth or not, he still has other changes to answer to around the world and its only a matter of time before he will have to answer to those higher level changes, if he is even guilty of them of couse. After reviewing the charges, It seems as the law is written, Assanage was not one of responsibility thus can not be liable for the security of these documents. He may have been the one to publish the, but not the source of the leak. A lesser change of accessory after the fact, and capital conspiracy to commit Espionage can be charged against him; However, that is only my interpretation of the law and I am far from a legal expert or a Judge so I am not sure how it will swing. The DOJ has taken bigger swings at bigger targets and managed to hit the nail on the head.
-
This is very possible and sort of likely, considering the timeline as well. These allegations were announced after the major Wikileaks incident which sparked international interest in Assanage, however as I know first hand truth or not, he still has other changes to answer to around the world and its only a matter of time before he will have to answer to those higher level changes, if he is even guilty of them of couse. After reviewing the charges, It seems as the law is written, Assanage was not one of responsibility thus can not be liable for the security of these documents. He may have been the one to publish the, but not the source of the leak. A lesser change of accessory after the fact, and capital conspiracy to commit Espionage can be charged against him; However, that is only my interpretation of the law and I am far from a legal expert or a Judge so I am not sure how it will swing. The DOJ has taken bigger swings at bigger targets and managed to hit the nail on the head.
Thats what the law says, doesnt mean that he will still have to answer to them if he suddenly "vanishes" or "changes his name and runs away"
-
Thats what the law says, doesnt mean that he will still have to answer to them if he suddenly "vanishes" or "changes his name and runs away"
Yes but doing that will make him on the FBI,CIA,Interpool's MOST wanted list, also as stated before It would prove redundant for the UK to declare a state of war for one person, and would further ruin South American Diplomacy, and lets face a nation like the UK doesnt really need to go to war, Also I'd ask any citizen of the UK Do you want to go to war with some South American county over someone who found out your nations naughty secretes that the government didnt want you to know?
Diplomacy and Bureaucracy will play this out but as in other threads if this man truely wants to be free from western powers he should seek refuge in nations that hold some sway or nations that the west wouldn't go to war over for one person.
-
Yes but doing that will make him on the FBI,CIA,Interpool's MOST wanted list, also as stated before It would prove redundant for the UK to declare a state of war for one person, and would further ruin South American Diplomacy, and lets face a nation like the UK doesnt really need to go to war, Also I'd ask any citizen of the UK Do you want to go to war with some South American county over someone who found out your nations naughty secretes that the government didnt want you to know?
Diplomacy and Bureaucracy will play this out but as in other threads if this man truely wants to be free from western powers he should seek refuge in nations that hold some sway or nations that the west wouldn't go to war over for one person.
I was being sarcastic. American secret services have a long history of pulling jacks like what i mentioned.
-
I was being sarcastic. American secret services have a long history of pulling jacks like what i mentioned.
Welcome to the Internet, sarcasm doesn't convey well over it xD. But I know what you mean in a sense. Sure Osama Bin Laden was pro hide and seek champion yet thanks many years of work and various intelligence agencies world wide were able to locate him. Its only a matter of time, before Assange is located and arrested or mysteriously dies in a freak accident courtesy of the CIA.
-
Not bossing, just stating the rules. Sorry your vision is too clouded to see it.
I see no point in arguing with you over it, I've learned you have a set of opinions and an attitude that is single visioned without chance of discussion, exactly like you claim the rest of the world is. Ironic.
Distorting rules, that's what you meant to say. Refer to previous post for explanation. And besides, discussing something and coming with things such as ''you are breaking rules'' or ''lol why do you always have to hate this'' are different things. Way or another, the warning was given.
Taylor: I don't think everyone would just sit with arms crossed if UK was to declare war because of the Assange thing. What would happen most likely is a call for sanctions or some kind of ''strangling attempt'' as was done with a couple nations already that also fell in the ''terrorism'' subject like I replied a few pages back.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191185/Julian-Assange-exile-Britain-gives-Ecuador-aid-Wikileaks-Assange-protected.html?ito=feeds-newsxml (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191185/Julian-Assange-exile-Britain-gives-Ecuador-aid-Wikileaks-Assange-protected.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
-
Why doesn't he just get himself out in a diplomatic crate, seeing as they are forbidden from being seized and opened under international law?
Foreign Secretary William Hague yesterday faced demands to stop Britain’s aid programme in Ecuador in protest at its support for the WikiLeaks fugitive.
Hague should be ashamed of himself. The fact that Assange takes refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy does not justify withdrawing aid from the Ecuadorian citizens. The things politicians do to support their political agenda. :roll:
-
Britain confirmed he wont be given a peaceful passage out of britain, in other words if he trys to leave the embassy they will arrest him, thats if they don't enter and arrest him first.
The British governments not going to want to waste too much time and money just standing round the embassy waiting for him to exit, if I were in-charge I would have already entered and arrested him for his crimes without worrying what Ecuador has to say, whats the worst they can do ay?
-
Hard to believe how they overlook simple solutions in a situation such as this.
While Britain can still arrest him if he steps out into British soil, there is no law(?) permitting them to open diplomatic packages between embassies that are protected under international law.
-
Hard to believe how they overlook simple solutions in a situation such as this.
While Britain can still arrest him if he steps out into British soil, there is no law(?) permitting them to open diplomatic packages between embassies that are protected under international law.
Well by the looks on it Britain will just be standing outside 24/7 until Ecuador gets tired of holding him and kicks him out, TBH there should be some law on embassy's holding wanted criminals under such diplomatic status to stop the country the embassy is in from arresting the person, either way Ecuador can't keep him in there forever.
-
Well by the looks on it Britain will just be standing outside 24/7 until Ecuador gets tired of holding him and kicks him out, TBH there should be some law on embassy's holding wanted criminals under such diplomatic status to stop the country the embassy is in from arresting the person, either way Ecuador can't keep him in there forever.
There is a Law, however Ecuador has given Assan pretty much the same rights as a citizen of Ecuador and at this point if the UK broke into to arrest him it would be Kidnapping and if taken to the World Court it would be something stupid that could lead to a war as I doubt China or Russia would not take kindly to the UK saying in essence saying"Fuck your sovereignty were the UK". Not to mention the amount of Global politics that would be in a huge uproar. However take this for an example what if Ecuador is supported by its neighbors, what if nations put sanctions on the UK and refuse to provide them with there goods, Alot of Food products come from the South American region, and just like that overnight the supply of said items to the UK stopped, Prices would raise higher the Oil and that would hurt the economy of the UK. Thanks to the world being so inter dependent on other nations a strong military is not always the only way to bring a nation to there knee's.
-
There is a Law, however Ecuador has given Assan pretty much the same rights as a citizen of Ecuador and at this point if the UK broke into to arrest him it would be Kidnapping and if taken to the World Court it would be something stupid that could lead to a war as I doubt China or Russia would not take kindly to the UK saying in essence saying"f**k your sovereignty were the UK". Not to mention the amount of Global politics that would be in a huge uproar. However take this for an example what if Ecuador is supported by its neighbors, what if nations put sanctions on the UK and refuse to provide them with there goods, Alot of Food products come from the South American region, and just like that overnight the supply of said items to the UK stopped, Prices would raise higher the Oil and that would hurt the economy of the UK. Thanks to the world being so inter dependent on other nations a strong military is not always the only way to bring a nation to there knee's.
Although you have some good points, I should expect countrys like China and Russia not to go to war with Britain over something as stupid and simple as Ecuador wrongfuly holding a man thats wanted by quite a few countrys, for instance America wants his head and they'd love Britain to enter with force and arrest him so that they could get their hands on him, so if the UK did enter I'm sure the US would back the UK up if China and/or Russia made any threats to the UK, and you say they could sanction some products that come from South America to the UK, I don't mean to be a dick but I'm sure the UK could survive without bananas.. :lol:
Britain basicly supplies most of it's own food, if you come here you'll see by the hundreds and hundreds of miles of farms lining each motorway, thats how in the WW's the UK survived, because the most used foods in Britain are unfact made in Britain.
However back on topic, and like I said, the UK will just be standing at Ecuadors door until they get tired and throw him out, honestly I'de love for them to burst in right now and take him by force, if he thinks he can spend his whole life in Ecuadors embassy he's wrong, BBC news did say it's a stand off testing who will give in first, either Ecuador gets bored and kicks him out, or the British government gets tired of using their trained/payed for police officers standing at their door, if the UK does pull it's cops away from the embassy, they'd put undercover officers there to spy on the embassy, TBH I think this will be taken to a world court if someone doesn't give in soon regardless, Ecuador should not be abusing the system to keep a heavily wanted man in their embassy, the fact they do it on British soil (basicly) is already bad enough, do they want to get a middle finger from the UK in the future if they may need something?
I hope the UK removes Ecuadors embassy when all this is over, they don't deserve it after this.
And I suppose yes Ecuador could to the same to an embassy on Ecuadors soil, but do we really need it anyway?
-
so if the UK did enter I'm sure the US would back the UK up if China and/or Russia made any threats to the UK,
China is dependant on the United States for money, and the United States is dependant on China for... well pretty much anything made that we have. Diplomatically, the US wouldn't do anything drastic against China.
As for Russians, they will most likely continue to drink their Vodka and forget about it.
I should expect countrys like China and Russia not to go to war with Britain over something as stupid
They won't, they don't care. Taylor has no grounds or evidence to back his claims.
Ecuador should not be abusing the system to keep a heavily wanted man in their embassy
The whole point of Asylum, is to protect those who are wanted for (false) prosecution by other countries. This is the system. However normally, like a safe haven but was designed for people who are actually in danager from their own countries not someone who half the worlds nations want stopped plus Sweden wanting him to execute these charges against him.
I hope the UK removes Ecuadors embassy when all this is over, they don't deserve it after this.
Won't be easy to do as it is easy said.
I saw last night on TV, that one woman was saying he (Assanage) will be taken to Ecuador, where is status will return to a normal citizen, will be arrested and will be turned over the United States for prosecution. They theorized that, based on the time to decide his "asylum", that Ecuador may have arranged a "trap" for the wanted criminal. Ecuador has a strong standing extradition treaty with the United States. However, this was only a theory by a legal analyst and has really no backing to support it and I myself, find it a bit shady.
-
China is dependant on the United States for money, and the United States is dependant on China for... well pretty much anything made that we have. Diplomatically, the US wouldn't do anything drastic against China.
As for Russians, they will most likely continue to drink their Vodka and forget about it.
They won't, they don't care. Taylor has no grounds or evidence to back his claims.
Bah no one wars now a days however sanctions are the name of the game and the China Russia thing is similar to whats going in in Syria, there just flexing what political power they have and testing there influence, NO one would actually war anyone but sanctions are a very likely situation, and there are nations like China and Russia who could back said sanctions dispute the fact that its somewhat counter intuitive. Pretty much as far as things go right now this whole drama is bascily over national laws of nations and international laws. Assan should fin refuge in nations that I stated before where the West is most likely not going to attempt to push around and instead beg.
Also at that line "Ecuador should not be abusing the system to keep a heavily wanted man in their embassy" "I hope the UK removes Ecuadors embassy when all this is over, they don't deserve it after this."
The UK very much can however embassy's are protected by international law, thus why just marching into one is seen as an act of war.
-
As I mentioned before, what's there to tell us that Assange is not a victim of a political scheme by the involved bureaucracies to remove someone who might challenge their curtailing of the right to information?
-
As I mentioned before, what's there to tell us that Assange is not a victim of a political scheme by the involved bureaucracies to remove someone who might challenge their curtailing of the right to information?
There is nothing that can prove otherwise, or for it.
However, he brought it upon himself. He knew exactly what he was doing... you can not do what he did and expect no international repercussions to take place.