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.

 

Ecuador 'won't be bullied on Assange extradition'

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Explain in detail why it would not happen.

I believe you are projecting your opinion into a realm where your opinion is of zero consequence. If Ecuador want to help this man, they will.

M'eh.




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Explain in detail why it would not happen.

I believe you are projecting your opinion into a realm where your opinion is of zero consequence. If Ecuador want to help this man, they will.

M'eh.


Actually he is correct.

When a nation decides to send their representative (ambassador) to a nation, the receiving nation has to accept the individual as an ambassador. If the receiving nation does not accept the individual, then the "ambassador" goes back home.

Diplomatic Immunity applies to only those diplomats where both countries, the one who assigned and the one that accepted, agree.

The diplomatic protocols extend from:

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

In another thread it was suggested to pu Assange in a crate and send him out as diplomatic mail. Again though that would also be a violation of the protocols set forth in the vienna convention. It can only be used for official items (documents etc) and not people (Article 27).

Article -2

The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions,
takes place by mutual consent.


Article 4 -

1.The sending State must make certain that the agrément of the receiving State has been given for
the person it proposes to accredit as head of the mission to that State.
2.The receiving State is not obliged to give reasons to the sending State for a refusal of agrément.


Which effectively puts to rest the "give Assange diplomatic immunity" possibility.

As far as Asylum goes that falls under The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The problem with the Asylum claim under UDHR is article 14 -


Article 14.
• (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
• (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.


There is nothing under US law that Assange could be charged with that has the death penalty as an option. That was a lie his legal team has been using, along with Assange being sent to Gitmo and being denied access to a lawyer and the legal sytem. They are doing this to play on the emotions of people who dont bother to research the claims, as some people have done in this thread.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Which effectively puts to rest the "give Assange diplomatic immunity" possibility.


It wouldn't matter if he got immunity on paper, anyway. There are people who are determined to kill him, and who will do so, irrespective of what the law says one way or the other.

Obviously they will try and make it look good, sure; but ultimately, the law will be irrelevant.
edit on 11-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Which effectively puts to rest the "give Assange diplomatic immunity" possibility.


It wouldn't matter if he got immunity on paper, anyway. There are people who are determined to kill him, and who will do so, irrespective of what the law says one way or the other.

Obviously they will try and make it look good, sure; but ultimately, the law will be irrelevant.
edit on 11-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)


Who is determined to kill Assange and why?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Article 4 -

1.The sending State must make certain that the agrément of the receiving State has been given for
the person it proposes to accredit as head of the mission to that State.
2.The receiving State is not obliged to give reasons to the sending State for a refusal of agrément.


Which effectively puts to rest the "give Assange diplomatic immunity" possibility.

But nowhere does it say that Equador wishes to have him accredited as "head of the mission" to the receiving state.
I read this to mean that once the Head of the mission has received accreditation his staff/family etc are all given diplomatic immunity or does everyone need to receive individual accreditation?

Just asking!



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by leosnake
 


Ill need a little more persuading than that! Lol

Don't post anything in regards to English and Irish folk, unless you consult me before hand.

How does that sound to you?


It sounds great but I post only copies of british mass media about English and Irish folks here



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Who is determined to kill Assange and why?


I could answer who, but you'd probably disagree with me, and that is not an argument that I can really be bothered to get into, because I know I'm right. It would simply be a case of throwing myself against your own skepticism, which is pointless. I've reached a point where I honestly don't care what people who disagree with me on various things believe, now.

Being constantly exposed to the trolling of both fascist, half-canine, brainwashed grunts from the American military on the one hand, and legions of cowardly, vindictive, atheistic clones of Gillian Anderson's character from The X Files on the other, on this forum, will do that. So understand, that to the extent that I'm going to answer your questions, I'm not doing it because I'm trying to convince you of anything, or for you to change me.

Given that, I'm not really sure why I'm replying at all. I think because I've come to respect you as an individual sufficiently, that I feel you're entitled to at least some answer.

As for motive, however, that's easy. The people in question generally believe that America, and America alone, should have the sovereign right to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, wherever it wants, and to whoever it wants.

Assange managed to tangibly challenge and defy that assumption. To put it simply, he spat in Uncle Sam's eye; and he did so in a way that mattered. He also exposed the psychopathic degeneracy of most of the individuals who we, as a species, euphemistically refer to as our leaders.

The likes of Joseph Lieberman can be counted on, to therefore spend the rest of their lives trying to kill him as a result; or at least, perhaps, until another, more appealing target for their infanticidal urges presents itself.

It's fairly simple.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by leosnake
 


I've been rather polite with you, but please state the reasoning behind your objection to me posting about Russia.

I could understand if maybe I'd judgementally and falsely spoken about your country, but I obtained that fact from a Russian Documentary on RT the other day lol.

ETA: On topic, I'm surprised they're not publicly after the rest of Assanges team, we all for get that he doent operate alone.... Mind you, just like FoWL is encrypted, maybe he's protected their identity.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
2 things.......is JA possibly being used as a bargaining chip by Rafael 'Correa' Delgado ........? If so I think Assange's ass might be being prepared for the US oven.........as in "your goose is cooked" JA...........

Can a Limo to the airport be considered secure - as in "diplomatic pouch."?

edit on 11-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by leosnake
 


I've been rather polite with you, but please state the reasoning behind your objection to me posting about Russia.

I could understand if maybe I'd judgementally and falsely spoken about your country, but I obtained that fact from a Russian Documentary on RT the other day lol.

ETA: On topic, I'm surprised they're not publicly after the rest of Assanges team, we all for get that he doent operate alone.... Mind you, just like FoWL is encrypted, maybe he's protected their identity.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)

RT is a channel of Putin's propaganda



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by leosnake
 


Again, I see your objection , but no reasoning... Im intruiged, tell me more.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by leosnake
 


Again, I see your objection , but no reasoning... Im intruiged, tell me more.


Gays were always in rus. government
even Peter Great was gay



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Wikileaks let loose numerous diplomatic messages that were top secret and could potentially have had people killed with that information. Granted the helicopter footage needed to be brought forth but this guy could have gotten Americans working for their country killed. Not everyone working for the government is evil.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
just a question or two if assange gets asylum in Ecuador will Ecuador become the worlds safe haven for truth ? will this become the place to go when your govt wants you to keep quiet and not expose there corruption & lies ? will Ecuador offer Diplomatic immunity to anyone who uncovers truth and is being persecuted by there governments ?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
Why the bloody hell didn't Assange go to the Russian embassy for asylum.




Probably because it would give ammo to the people arguing he is anti-US and anti-AUS. He is not against the governments, nor is he a traitor etc, he did what he did simply because he believes the information should be freely available to everyone. Russia would probably want him to do some dirty work or them in return for asylum haha, and I think his hands are "dirty" enough, from the governments POV anyway.

Good on Ecuador!!!!! Glad that they don't succumb to pressure from these govt's.
edit on 12-7-2012 by knightwhosaysnih because: added last line




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by wiser3
But nowhere does it say that Equador wishes to have him accredited as "head of the mission" to the receiving state.

That was in response to people discussing the possibility of giving Assange Diplomatic status in order to protect him and to prevent his arrest by UK authorities and extradition to Sweden.


Originally posted by wiser3
I read this to mean that once the Head of the mission has received accreditation his staff/family etc are all given diplomatic immunity or does everyone need to receive individual accreditation?

Just asking!

To my knowledge it does extend to the Diplomats immediate family. There was an incident some years back involving the Brazillian Ambassador to the US son. Apparently he was involved in a bar shooting. While he was arrested and charged, the judge dismissed all charges citing Diplomatic Immunity as the reason.
edit on 12-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
Can a Limo to the airport be considered secure - as in "diplomatic pouch."?


Based on the training I received yes. Offical vehicles will have diplomatic tags on them and we are prevented from searching a diplomatic tagged vehicle. The State Department will issue the plate and the plate format coincides with the type of diplomat asigned and the country they are from (Ambassador, Consular offical, staff etc).

Assange could get into a a diplomatic vehicle and could be taken to the airport however there is nothing at the airport that would prevent the police from arresting assange. The moment he stepped out of the vehicle he can be taken into custody.

I will be surprised if Assange is granted asylum since his situation does not meet the criteria established. That argument is reinforced by the British legal system who shot down several arguments by Assange and his team about fair trials etc etc etc in Sweden.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Last I checked it is ok for 2 people to disagree on things. I asked the question because here in the US there is the 1st amendment and if you are a member of Congress they have the added protection of the speech and debate clause in the constitution.

I know Sarah Palin called for his death as well as some others. The point I was trying to make was those people are within their rights to express their own opinion. In addition its important to know the background of the person making the comment. Since the legislative branch has nothing to do with filing charges or prosecuting (exception is contempt of Congress as well as impeachment) their opinions on Assange are just that - opinions.

If we have people directly involved in the investigation or if we have judicial figures exressing their personal opinion then I would be more concerned as it would raise serious issues about a fair trial among other legal issues.

As a side note not all posts have sinister intentions.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by petrus4
 



I know Sarah Palin called for his death as well as some others. The point I was trying to make was those people are within their rights to express their own opinion. In addition its important to know the background of the person making the comment. Since the legislative branch has nothing to do with filing charges or prosecuting (exception is contempt of Congress as well as impeachment) their opinions on Assange are just that - opinions.


While I think that it is admirable that you are willing to uphold the right of these individuals to free speech, I also think that an important distinction needs to be made, here. We need to determine the likelihood, of whether or not these individuals, wish to engage in actions, which go beyond mere speech. In a murder investigation, unless I am incorrect, an individual who has called for, or expressed desire for, the death of a murdered party, will generally become a high priority suspect.

At the very least, every individual who has made such a statement, would be considered guilty within numerous countries, of a grievous act of assault. I am a little unclear on the law in American jurisdictions on this point, admittedly; but where I'm from, verbally threatening an individual's life is generally considered a serious crime.

As an example, I consider former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, to not only have made the statement that Assange is guilty of treason, (despite the fact that he is not an American citizen, and therefore it is difficult to understand how a charge of treason could apply) and therefore should receive the death penalty, but as a man in his position, very possibly has the means to at least attempt to engage in practical action, on the basis of those statements.

If Assange dies, therefore, it would be my hope that the relevant authorities would view both Mr Huckabee and possibly Ms Palin, as at least suspects for the order of Assange's execution, if not the literal, physical commission of the act.


As a side note not all posts have sinister intentions.


I didn't mean to accuse you of having sinister intentions as such; it is merely that there are certain subjects, on which I am becoming unwilling to enter into debate, beyond certain limits. Incremental clarification of each other's positions, if it is done in a civil and rhetorically legitimate manner, I will tolerate. Various other forms of behaviour which I typically have to contend with on this forum, however, I will not.
edit on 12-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I'm sure he didn't run down embassy street and duck into the first one he saw. He was refused by many embassies I'll bet. The list of countries that would not protect him, that is your true Axis of Evil list. I wonder if Ecuador practices total disclosure to its citizens?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join