UK Threatens to enter Ecuador Embassy to arrest Wikileaks' Julian Assan

[JayL]

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...

[Teddy]

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...

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.

[JDC]

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.

[JayL]

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.

[Nathan_Alexandrov]

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.

[Mikal]

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.

[Teddy]

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.

[JDC]

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.

[stormeus]

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.

[JDC]

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.

[Reece]

 

[JayL]

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?

[Alan.Wake]

What do you want us to talk about? The shoes he is wearing while in the embassy?

Shoes might contain leaked documents.

[Mikal]

 

I lol'd hard.

[Teddy]

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.