It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Covert plan at Ecuadorian Embassy strengthened after removing dedicated guards (Assange)

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: BMorris
Never mind, not going to throw oil on the fire. I have a life to live in reality, not on forums.


Shame that was a good post.

You right maybe we should start extradition for US gun owners to the UK! As by Xcathdra logic UK law must apply to the US too :p


It never ceases to amaze me how you walk around the issue by trying to invoke crimes of a different status than the ones we are talking about. Gun laws in the US only apply to individuals in the US, just as gun laws in the UK only apply to UK citizens.

However since we are talking about cyber crimes your comparison is without merit. A person in the UK who uses his computer to hack US computers is not different than the almost 1200 foreign nationals the UK has went after, who are in countries other than the UK / commonwealth countries, for cyber crimes.

Try to stay on topic please and maybe engage the topic instead of attacking the poster. Or is that all you guys have lefT?
edit on 15-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Wow, I get the impression you really are unhappy with hackers and associated people exposing governments as corrupt.
Lol, that is amusing.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Not at all and im not sure how you arrived at that wrong conclusion. I find it funny that members think laws of one nation dont apply to a citizen in another who uses an electronic median to violate the law. I also find it humorous when people talk about government breaking laws yet not surprisingly they ignore the criminal violations of people who think they are exposing corruption.

Its like the pro life wingnuts who kill doctors while preaching about the sanctity of life. Its not ok to murder and we are going to kill you to prove our point. This is what you guys to with Assange, which is hilarious and sad all at the same time. Its one thing to claim you are exposing corruption and law violations. Its something else entirely when your sole motive after obtaining information is to sell it to the highest bidder.

The moment Assange did that he lost all credibility.


I was pointing out British law when it comes to cyber crimes is the same as the US and other nations. It also shows that the comment/opinion on not being subject to a law from another nation contradicts the laws in the UK as well.

I would think if a hacker from country A got personal and financial information from you or other members you would be unhappy if the authorities said tough luck, the suspects live in another country so your on your own.

Its easy for a person to dismiss something when it doesn't affect them. When it does impact them they seem to get pissy. Its not enough to dismiss something simply because people dont like the country its coming from. That doesnt make the laws invalid or any less enforceable.
edit on 15-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: TrueBrit

Similar thoughts crossed my mind as well.
I was also wondering what the deal is with diplomatic cars these days, does Assange just need to get his arse into one of Ecuador's parked at the front door, then a jet at a private airfield or something?

Getting out of the embassy is one thing, but getting out of the UK quite another


It's easy enough to get in, shouldn't be that hard getting out!

Train Ticket from London to Paris, stop at Calais to give a Somalian your passport.

I would imagine some of the dark web could get him a passport, fly to Ecuador, sell some books on your escape, become a blogger.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

The problem with the diplomatic car game plan is the design of the Embassy of Ecuador. It is not its own building with its own inner property. Its in a building that is shared with the Embassy of Columbia. It occupies several suites on the ground floor. There is no real area that a vehicle could get to that would protect Assange from arrest since he would have to leave the Embassy and its protection and re-enter England in order to walk to the car.


Embassy of Ecuador (London)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's the same as money laundering, even of the non electronic variety. The illegal activity happens in one nation, but as long as the guilty party isn't a citizen of that country and isn't on their soil there's not really anything they can do to prosecute it short of an extradition treaty.

Another example would be copyright violaters who are frequently free from criminal prosecution unless they're named Kim Dotcom.
edit on 15-10-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Meh... There are laws that make it illegal to access a classified computer system. It doesn't matter where the person is located in order to violate the law. An extradition request is submitted and we go from there. My debate with the others revolves around their position that since he was not on US soil, US laws do not apply. The laws in question, in the US and the UK and many other countries, don't agree with their point of view on it.

The UK has successfully prosecuted over 1000+ people who were outside the UK when they committed the electronic crimes.

I still maintain the only reason they are taking that position is because of who it is, Assange, and the fact he was able to drag the US into his profit scheme in addition to using fear mongering to avoid answering the charges against him in Sweden.

They are all about holding people accountable... except when its Assange, who can do no wrong in their eyes.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Lol, none of that really matters so long as Ecuador continues to shelter him.
If the UK government had any intentions to revoke the embassy status one must question why they have waited so long to do so.
...ain't those international laws, conventions, and informal agreement things a bitch

edit on 16.10.2015 by grainofsand because: Clarity



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Not really no. Its like any other law which is to say the system takes time. Behind bars or locked up in Ecuador's embassy. Either way it has the desired effect.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope, I'd prefer to be holed up in the Ecuador embassy than Gitmo or a US federal prison.
Assange obviously feels the same way lol

...some prisons are better than others



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Any particular reason you jumped on the band wagon about Gitmo when it doesnt apply? Are you being influenced by Assanges lies to like Ecuador was?

edit on 16-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: grainofsand

Any particular reason you jumped on the band wagon about Gitmo when it doesnt apply? Are you being influenced by Assanges lies to like Ecuador was?
Yep, my absolute distrust of the US government when it comes to dealing with folk who they wish to detain while avoiding homeland human rights law.
Pretty obvious do you not think?



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

The only thing obvious is how far people are willing to trust Assange in the absence of any facts or base in reality.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh tut tut, trusting Assange is a lot different to understanding why he prefers to be holed up in Ecuador's embassy over the possibility of a US federal prison, or even worse Gitmo, the place where the US government holds people if they do not wish to conform to homeland human rights law.

I don't trust the guy, I don't know him, but we do know the US government wants him and it has a poor record of treatment for 'enemies of the state'.

Your almost gushing love for the US government is interesting though, a common theme in your posts lol



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
Your almost gushing love for the US government is interesting though, a common theme in your posts lol


Not at all.. Feel free to show where I supported what the US government did in relation to Assange releasing classified information about Us government actions. This is where your and others completely fail. You just assume people support the Us government and its actions without doing any investigating. You just repeat the lies and hope no one notices you have nothing to back it up.

Your love for Assange though is evident as your posts support what he did while even admitting you dont trust him or what he says. Going so far as to repeat the lie about Gitmo is telling as you seem completely uninterested in the truth and would prefer to repeat lies for the sole purpose of your hatred for the US government.

I challenge you to show how Assange would end up in gitmo. Assange and his lawyer failed at answering that question to the British judge so why dont you give it a shot and see if you can do better.

While your at it stop trying to use political baiting to try and get a rise out of me in hopes of a T and C violation please.
edit on 16-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

No love for Assange from me, just a recognition that his fears of ending up in a US federal prison or Gitmo are understandable.
The Us government does have previous form for holding people in a territory where homeland human rights laws are ignored.

Shameful to be honest, but hey, continue with your support lol



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

His fears are baseless just like the other excuses he has tried to use to avoid extradition to Sweden. Like I said you got to love a guy who demands people be held accountable while exempting himself from the same requirement. It makes him the exact same as the governments he accuses.

Ironic.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

If the desired effect is to make Assange a martyr of sorts, then you're quite right--it worked.

The guy is a hero for speaking truth to power.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: grainofsand

His fears are baseless
Ah, so you are involved in the circles of people in the US who want Assange arrested?
Sorry, I didn't realise, I guess I should just believe you in future lol



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

Meh... There are laws that make it illegal to access a classified computer system. It doesn't matter where the person is located in order to violate the law. An extradition request is submitted and we go from there. My debate with the others revolves around their position that since he was not on US soil, US laws do not apply. The laws in question, in the US and the UK and many other countries, don't agree with their point of view on it.

The UK has successfully prosecuted over 1000+ people who were outside the UK when they committed the electronic crimes.

I still maintain the only reason they are taking that position is because of who it is, Assange, and the fact he was able to drag the US into his profit scheme in addition to using fear mongering to avoid answering the charges against him in Sweden.

They are all about holding people accountable... except when its Assange, who can do no wrong in their eyes.



It does matter, because US law cannot apply to non US citizens unless they're on US soil. In the cases where the UK has prosecuted people it has been with the assistance of the local government arresting the person and turning them over to that country. In Assange's case he's a journalist, he's not hacking the computers... only publishing the information he's given. That's a big difference.




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join