|
|
|
Julian Assange given asylum in Ecuador
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 16 August, 2012
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been granted asylum in Ecuador, just 60 days after he began fighting extradition from London by seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Foreign Secretary William Hague stated the UK would not grant Assange safe passage out of the country.
Assange was set to be extradited to Sweden, where he faces charges of rape. Assange denies the claims, saying ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Member
|
16. August 2012 @ 15:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Negating a nation's diplomatic status sets a bad precedent. It encourages other nations to do the same, which ultimately might lead to closing embassy's. Whether you agree with Ecuador or support the Brits, its a bad idea. Ask website explains it well:
"Embassies are designed to increase communication between countries by having official representatives of foreign governments on hand to consult or negotiate with the host government. Embassies also assist travelers from their home country., and provide visa and other consular services for people seeking to travel abroad"
"Do not underestimate the power of an enemy, no matter how great or small, to rise against you another day." - Atilla
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
brockie
Member
|
16. August 2012 @ 16:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
think this is wrong he should be in Sweden clearing his name or in jail for what he did.
|
|
JST1946
Senior Member
|
16. August 2012 @ 16:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ecuador is a good place to live if you wan't to get shot or mugged.
20 Year U.S.Army Veteran.Vietnam 1969-1972 101st Abn.Div.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
16. August 2012 @ 17:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
1) By both international and the individual countries' involved (US, UK, Sweden, Ecuador) laws, embassies *are NOT* subject to the laws of the territories they reside in; they are small bits of another sovereign nation.
2) Julian Assange *has NOT* actually been charged with any crime. Furthermore, one of his accusers has retracted her initial statment, saying she was pressured into it by the other woman "out of spite".
3) The US damn well wants Assange's ass, for exposing all sorts of underhanded chicanery on our part. It's been conveniently ignored by all of the official parties, that many of the documents exposed by WikiLeaks show malfeasance on a rather large scale, that violates both US and international law.
So, it's OK to extradite someone for "questioning", eh? How come they refused to "question" Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy..? Well? What question couldn't be answered there, as well as it could be answered in Sweden?!
This is all a rather transparent ploy to smear Assange, nothing more, and get him into US clutches, so he can be effectively silenced.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. August 2012 @ 17:12
|
|
simpsim
Newbie
|
16. August 2012 @ 17:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Assange is obviously trying to portray himself as some sort of martyr here. I agree that sovereign issues are at stake as far as revoking diplomatic status but this is completely the wrong path for him to be taking IMO.
If there is some grand conspiracy for the US to try him for treason then maybe, just maybe he has a point. The way he has responded today however just smacks of a propaganda attempt to ridicule the UK and US governments and will win him even less support from the rest of the world. He is accused of a crime in Sweden and as Brokie just said, why isn't he keen to clear his name there instead of risking another country's diplomatic relations by being at the embassy in the first place?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
16. August 2012 @ 20:38 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by brockie:
think this is wrong he should be in Sweden clearing his name or in jail for what he did.
If he was in Sweden, he would either be getting a show trial or having an "Accident". Should he be in jail for exposing the crimes of the most powerful men in the world? I guess that is a matter of opinion...personally, I think the people doing the crimes should be in jail.
Originally posted by Bozobub:
1) By both international and the individual countries' involved (US, UK, Sweden, Ecuador) laws, embassies *are NOT* subject to the laws of the territories they reside in; they are small bits of another sovereign nation.
2) Julian Assange *has NOT* actually been charged with any crime. Furthermore, one of his accusers has retracted her initial statment, saying she was pressured into it by the other woman "out of spite".
3) The US damn well wants Assange's ass, for exposing all sorts of underhanded chicanery on our part. It's been conveniently ignored by all of the official parties, that many of the documents exposed by WikiLeaks show malfeasance on a rather large scale, that violates both US and international law.
So, it's OK to extradite someone for "questioning", eh? How come they refused to "question" Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy..? Well? What question couldn't be answered there, as well as it could be answered in Sweden?!
This is all a rather transparent ploy to smear Assange, nothing more, and get him into US clutches, so he can be effectively silenced.
They can't "question" him inside the embassy because the carpet is really nice and they don't want to ruin it while waterboarding him.
Originally posted by simpsim:
Assange is obviously trying to portray himself as some sort of martyr here. I agree that sovereign issues are at stake as far as revoking diplomatic status but this is completely the wrong path for him to be taking IMO.
If there is some grand conspiracy for the US to try him for treason then maybe, just maybe he has a point. The way he has responded today however just smacks of a propaganda attempt to ridicule the UK and US governments and will win him even less support from the rest of the world. He is accused of a crime in Sweden and as Brokie just said, why isn't he keen to clear his name there instead of risking another country's diplomatic relations by being at the embassy in the first place?
He is a martyr, and he can never clear his name in Sweden. If he was anyone else, the charges would have been dropped long ago due to the unreliable witnesses (one of whom admits to her lies). Even if he somehow survived long enough to get to trial, and even if he wasn't tortured into a confession, and even if the trial was fair, they would just trump up some other charge...or hold him in "Protective Custody" for the rest of his life. He is at the embassy because that is one of the only places he could go to, and even that was a risk. As it is, Ecuador has agreed to give him diplomatic immunity because their leaders didn't happen to be among the criminals he exposed. "He" is not risking their embassy for himself; "they" are risking their embassy for him...big difference. If they are willing to risk that much to protect him, there is very strong reason.
|
Senior Member
|
16. August 2012 @ 21:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
REMEMBER: Assange Real "Crime" > He Exposed the Workings of the U.S. Terror Machine.
"This Generation is Burning the Mass Media to the Ground." ~ Julian Assange
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
|
Senior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 03:47 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by brockie:
think this is wrong he should be in Sweden clearing his name or in jail for what he did.
If he was in Sweden, he would either be getting a show trial or having an "Accident". Should he be in jail for exposing the crimes of the most powerful men in the world? I guess that is a matter of opinion...personally, I think the people doing the crimes should be in jail.
Originally posted by Bozobub:
1) By both international and the individual countries' involved (US, UK, Sweden, Ecuador) laws, embassies *are NOT* subject to the laws of the territories they reside in; they are small bits of another sovereign nation.
2) Julian Assange *has NOT* actually been charged with any crime. Furthermore, one of his accusers has retracted her initial statment, saying she was pressured into it by the other woman "out of spite".
3) The US damn well wants Assange's ass, for exposing all sorts of underhanded chicanery on our part. It's been conveniently ignored by all of the official parties, that many of the documents exposed by WikiLeaks show malfeasance on a rather large scale, that violates both US and international law.
So, it's OK to extradite someone for "questioning", eh? How come they refused to "question" Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy..? Well? What question couldn't be answered there, as well as it could be answered in Sweden?!
This is all a rather transparent ploy to smear Assange, nothing more, and get him into US clutches, so he can be effectively silenced.
They can't "question" him inside the embassy because the carpet is really nice and they don't want to ruin it while waterboarding him.
Originally posted by simpsim:
Assange is obviously trying to portray himself as some sort of martyr here. I agree that sovereign issues are at stake as far as revoking diplomatic status but this is completely the wrong path for him to be taking IMO.
If there is some grand conspiracy for the US to try him for treason then maybe, just maybe he has a point. The way he has responded today however just smacks of a propaganda attempt to ridicule the UK and US governments and will win him even less support from the rest of the world. He is accused of a crime in Sweden and as Brokie just said, why isn't he keen to clear his name there instead of risking another country's diplomatic relations by being at the embassy in the first place?
He is a martyr, and he can never clear his name in Sweden. If he was anyone else, the charges would have been dropped long ago due to the unreliable witnesses (one of whom admits to her lies). Even if he somehow survived long enough to get to trial, and even if he wasn't tortured into a confession, and even if the trial was fair, they would just trump up some other charge...or hold him in "Protective Custody" for the rest of his life. He is at the embassy because that is one of the only places he could go to, and even that was a risk. As it is, Ecuador has agreed to give him diplomatic immunity because their leaders didn't happen to be among the criminals he exposed. "He" is not risking their embassy for himself; "they" are risking their embassy for him...big difference. If they are willing to risk that much to protect him, there is very strong reason.
bullshit.its like anyone else.if it was you or i we would be standing trial.this asshole should face up to the charges against him.i dont have diplomatic immunity,do you?
|
Senior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 04:23 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Assange was set to be extradited to Sweden, where he faces charges of rape. Assange denies the claims, saying the sexual 'assault' was consensual and the charges are politically motivated.
The charges are probably politically motivated.The problem is if he did face the charges and beat them they would find other reasons to charge him or shut him up or keep him locked up.
Depending on where you are if you exposed government information you'd be likely to have an accident possibly a fatal one.
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 04:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by aldan:
bullshit.its like anyone else.if it was you or i we would be standing trial.this asshole should face up to the charges against him.i dont have diplomatic immunity,do you?
Complete fail.
Point of fact, you *would not* legally be extraditable, as a US citizen (or a citizen of most Western nations, including the UK and Sweden), merely for "questioning"; there MUST be an actual criminal charge involved. That is simply not the case here; why not? In other words, you cannot stand trial without being charged with a crime; mere accusation is nowhere near enough, except (magically) for Julian Assange. THAT is the bullshit here. If they are so-o-o-o certain of his guilt, WTF is stopping them from charging him with a crime, eh? You do *not* have to be physically present to be charged with a crime, after all. That's what courts are for, are they not?
I'll tell you why: If they charge him with a crime, then he will have to have his day in court; that would put a large crimp on any plans to rapidly remit him to the US, and keep this shoddy business in the eyes of the public for much longer. The last damn thing CIA cockroaches want is more light on the matter (watch 'em scatter)! That's also the exact reason that Sweden is oh-so-pissy about questioning Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, of course; they wouldn't be able to keep their malfeasance out of the spotlight.
Furthermore, of the 2 women, one has already publicly recanted her testimony and stated she was pressured to accuse Assange by the other. According to her the whole thing was "out of spite" by the other woman. Yeah, real solid evidence, there, mmhm, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. =p
Yes, I agree, Assange should be treated like anyone else. That means not being extradited for transparently false accusations, instead of an actual crime, just like the rest of us should be treated. The UK's silly, overheated threats vs. Ecuador only reinforce the complete lack of any basis for his extradition. I'm actually rather glad they've exposed their true motives in such a ham-fisted manner, that is illegal both by their own laws and EVERY international treaty they have ever signed re: embassies.
|
|
Owled
Newbie
|
17. August 2012 @ 10:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Surely Assange WILL go to Sweden voluntarily to be tried, (for he had sex with consent and nothing to fear if honesty is applied), PROVIDED UK, Sweden and USA grant him a Non-Extradition Order. The order to cover him leaving UK, entering Sweden and being allowed to migrate to Ecuador freely, (if and when and after, he had his possible punishment in Sweden...)
But,
Hey he is not charged yet - not in Sweden, nor in the USA.
It seems Sweden, the UK and the USA do indeed have ulterior motives.....
FOR:
If they do NOT intend to follow what is feared by Assange (that he will be extradited to the US), then WHATis there against granting him a Non-Extradition agreement?
So far Assange is right and Bravo to Ecuador!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. August 2012 @ 08:22
|
|
pudly1
Newbie
|
17. August 2012 @ 11:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by aldan:
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by brockie:
think this is wrong he should be in Sweden clearing his name or in jail for what he did.
If he was in Sweden, he would either be getting a show trial or having an "Accident". Should he be in jail for exposing the crimes of the most powerful men in the world? I guess that is a matter of opinion...personally, I think the people doing the crimes should be in jail.
Originally posted by Bozobub:
1) By both international and the individual countries' involved (US, UK, Sweden, Ecuador) laws, embassies *are NOT* subject to the laws of the territories they reside in; they are small bits of another sovereign nation.
2) Julian Assange *has NOT* actually been charged with any crime. Furthermore, one of his accusers has retracted her initial statment, saying she was pressured into it by the other woman "out of spite".
3) The US damn well wants Assange's ass, for exposing all sorts of underhanded chicanery on our part. It's been conveniently ignored by all of the official parties, that many of the documents exposed by WikiLeaks show malfeasance on a rather large scale, that violates both US and international law.
So, it's OK to extradite someone for "questioning", eh? How come they refused to "question" Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy..? Well? What question couldn't be answered there, as well as it could be answered in Sweden?!
This is all a rather transparent ploy to smear Assange, nothing more, and get him into US clutches, so he can be effectively silenced.
They can't "question" him inside the embassy because the carpet is really nice and they don't want to ruin it while waterboarding him.
Originally posted by simpsim:
Assange is obviously trying to portray himself as some sort of martyr here. I agree that sovereign issues are at stake as far as revoking diplomatic status but this is completely the wrong path for him to be taking IMO.
If there is some grand conspiracy for the US to try him for treason then maybe, just maybe he has a point. The way he has responded today however just smacks of a propaganda attempt to ridicule the UK and US governments and will win him even less support from the rest of the world. He is accused of a crime in Sweden and as Brokie just said, why isn't he keen to clear his name there instead of risking another country's diplomatic relations by being at the embassy in the first place?
He is a martyr, and he can never clear his name in Sweden. If he was anyone else, the charges would have been dropped long ago due to the unreliable witnesses (one of whom admits to her lies). Even if he somehow survived long enough to get to trial, and even if he wasn't tortured into a confession, and even if the trial was fair, they would just trump up some other charge...or hold him in "Protective Custody" for the rest of his life. He is at the embassy because that is one of the only places he could go to, and even that was a risk. As it is, Ecuador has agreed to give him diplomatic immunity because their leaders didn't happen to be among the criminals he exposed. "He" is not risking their embassy for himself; "they" are risking their embassy for him...big difference. If they are willing to risk that much to protect him, there is very strong reason.
bullshit.its like anyone else.if it was you or i we would be standing trial.this asshole should face up to the charges against him.i dont have diplomatic immunity,do you?
Are you part of America's terror organization or just another idiot sheep Aidan?
|
|
goido
Junior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 11:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by JST1946:
Ecuador is a good place to live if you wan't to get shot or mugged.
BS I have been to Ecuador and it not worse that New York or Detroit
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
17. August 2012 @ 11:55 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
Complete fail.
Point of fact, you *would not* legally be extraditable, as a US citizen (or a citizen of most Western nations, including the UK and Sweden), merely for "questioning"; there MUST be an actual criminal charge involved. That is simply not the case here; why not? In other words, you cannot stand trial without being charged with a crime; mere accusation is nowhere near enough, except (magically) for Julian Assange. THAT is the bullshit here. If they are so-o-o-o certain of his guilt, WTF is stopping them from charging him with a crime, eh? You do *not* have to be physically present to be charged with a crime, after all. That's what courts are for, are they not?
You might be dancing a fine line there. Here's why, espionage. Operational Security & the lengths at which the good ol US of f*kin A will go to keep it would surprise Satan himself including selling out & trading a known source of information (i.e., person) in order to keep leaks or further hemorrhaging from happening. That includes dirty laundry.
I'm not taking a stand one way or another for Assange. One side says that the women involved were playing their damned 'catty games' & might have also been looking for that legal lottery dollar & another side of this story says this guy REALLY needs to shut his hole because some business really does need to be tended to without the general public's knowledge (a debate to be carried on later).
Either way, if what the US (& other participating governments) wants silenced can't be done 'legally' will then most likely be done covertly. The general public will hear of it as the ever present 'accident'.
So yes, theoretically, he probably is in violation of several laws of multiple countries Operational Procedures. Procedures that would have a soldier executed for having disclosed to the enemy unless under duress of torture themselves.
Assange is pretty much nothing more than an attention grabbing glory whore who has managed to somehow rise to semi-martyr (more like cry baby) because he "thinks" he's doing the right thing: But by "who's" definition?
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 12:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Rape keeps being mentioned in this case and yet rape is not part of the Swedish allegations, why is that?
Politically motivated?
Certainly seems like it & in that case who can blame him for using all means at his disposal to avoid it.
Do we have 'diplomatic immunity'?
The correct term (as I'm sure you know) is 'the right to seek political asylum'.
And yes we do have the right to claim it if we wish, whether it is granted or not is another matter.
The use of the term 'diplomatic immunity' wasn't loaded at all now was it?
|
Senior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 12:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xboxdvl2:
Quote:
Assange was set to be extradited to Sweden, where he faces charges of rape. Assange denies the claims, saying the sexual 'assault' was consensual and the charges are politically motivated.
The charges are probably politically motivated.The problem is if he did face the charges and beat them they would find other reasons to charge him or shut him up or keep him locked up.
Depending on where you are if you exposed government information you'd be likely to have an accident possibly a fatal one.
Very true it is impossible to have justice when a power house is out to get you! They control the information and can twist it anyway they wish to suit their purpose. You can be a choir boy but if the government wants to smear you the nail will be in the coffin.
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 16:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not that being a royal a-hole should be illegal, but the fact he is one doesn't make me care much about anything bad happening to him.
|
Senior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 18:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
well put.hes not a saint or a martyr and i care what happens to him why?
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 18:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
You should care what happens to him, if you care about the rule of law in civilized nations, or the repercussions if we allow silly crap like Britain's threats against the Ecuadorian embassy to continue. Both have potentially dire implications.
|
Senior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 18:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by aldan:
....bullshit.its like anyone else.if it was you or i we would be standing trial.this asshole should face up to the charges against him.i dont have diplomatic immunity,do you?
You sound like Brain Washed by The Mass Media. PLEASE Turn Off your Fuc**** TV. THX.
TODAY NEWS (8-17-12 - Washington D.C.):
-OAS results: 23 in favor, 5 abstentions , 3 against [Canada, Trinidad-and-Tobago & U.S.]. Ecuador's proposal for a meeting of foreign ministers has been approved.
-Resolution to convene Foreign Ministers to address UK threats of in-violating the Ecuadorean embassy HAS BEEN APPROVED.
-Foreign Ministers of OAS member states will convene on the 24th of August 2012 at the OAS Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/pres...Codigo=E-283/12
NOTE: OAS=Organization of American States - the UN of North + South America
live-tweet record of OAS Special Meeting on UK threats to storm Ecuadorian Embassy and arrest Julian Assange:
http://chirpstory.com/li/17510
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. August 2012 @ 20:27
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 20:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
My my. It's not often the OAS tweaks the US' nose so directly. This ought to be fascinating.
|
|
ibmeubu
Junior Member
|
17. August 2012 @ 21:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
It ought to be interesting to see how he actually makes it to Ecuador. I would imagine that there will be many, many eyes watching this man and the embassy.
rap
|
Senior Member
|
18. August 2012 @ 00:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
You should care what happens to him, if you care about the rule of law in civilized nations, or the repercussions if we allow silly crap like Britain's threats against the Ecuadorian embassy to continue. Both have potentially dire implications.
Again true! If it can happen to him it can happen to you!!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
18. August 2012 @ 07:47 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
You should care what happens to him, if you care about the rule of law in civilized nations, or the repercussions if we allow silly crap like Britain's threats against the Ecuadorian embassy to continue. Both have potentially dire implications.
I wasn't aware the "rule of law" including avoiding the law and finding others to help you do so.
|
|
