It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Britain threatens to storm Ecuador embassy to get Assange

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:27 PM

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:31 PM
I will admit I did not go through all 9 pages.. but just some basic facts:

1. Britain will NOT raid the embassy now, nor tomorrow..

This would create a huge problem, it would set a precedent that would endanger not only their own diplomats abroad, but every diplomat in the world that is on foreign soil... it would be a horrible move, they will NEVER do that.. Can they? .. legally yes, but it would be a diplomatic disaster ..

Also, they have too many economic ties with Ecuador .. oil being a prime example..

2. Why were there so many police there today? everyone thought they were about to raid the embassy!

No it's more likely that they suspected Assange might try to leave the embassy in a diplomatic vehicle.. they are determined to arrest him the moment he lives the building.. when more police arrived, protesters arrived.. and therefore more police arrived... sparking the rumor they had entered the building..

3. Would Assange be extradited to the US by Sweden if he were apprehended and stood trial there?

Absolutely not.. it is against international law for Sweden to extradite someone to a country where they face a death penalty .. therefore Assange would not and could not be extradited to the USA unless the USA guaranteed that Assange would not face such a penalty ... since he would no doubt be tried for treason and since treason carries the penalty of death.. Sweden cannot do it... and the US has made no such requests, at least not to the public..

So this is where we stand.. Assange's only valid option right now is to become a citizen of Ecuador and then have Ecuador declare him a diplomat ... then he would be immune unless the UK decides to invoke their law which would revoke his immunity .. but I don't think they could do that fast enough to catch him on the way to the airport...

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:34 PM
With all I just said I want to add that I am a HUGE supporter of Wikileaks... but I also think Assange is not an angel .. I think he knows he might be guilty of something in Sweden and is misdirecting everyone with this USA extradition/death penalty stuff.... it's simply not reality ... he can't be extradited to the USA ... and the USA cannot re-write international law...

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by moniker

The UK hasn't created a law that clashes with the vienna convention, where did you get that idea from?

All that will happen, they will be escorted from the UK, Assange will be sent to Sweden where he'll get charged with assault, he'll go to jail and everyone will realise that he's a sexual predator. Ecuador will realise they want to be friendly with the UK, they'll come back, and then everything is back to the status quo.

He has to have done it. To put it simply, if he gets sent to Sweden and they try to extradite him on espionage charges, he can actually appeal to the European court of human rights. After the song and dance he has done, I really doubt if that was the original plan, Sweden would dare send him to the US anymore.

I know some people are saying, "Well they offered to let them question them in the embassy", well yeah, but thats like saying, "Ok, we don't give a # about your legal process or the UK's legal process, but we'll let you talk to him under our supervision and guidance". I wouldn't have the right to do that, if I was harboring Assange, I'd have no legal grounds for demanding they question him in my house. Ecuador has no legal right to withhold him from the UK, now they've given him asylum on UK land and property how does that work? The only reason they didn't storm in straight away, was because they were trying to come to some diplomatic solution with Ecuador, which they in turn have said, "# you we're not going to be diplomatic about it".
Also, the UK has found no ground on his suspicions that the US will try to extradite him, there is no evidence for such a thing. There is only speculation and his own paranoia.

Either two things are reality. He's either genuinely paranoid that the US want him, not enough to assassinate him, but enough to do back ally deals with Sweden. Or (what I personally think) he knows he's going to go to jail because he knows what he did to those interns.

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:45 PM
reply to post by Xertious

Exactly... Assange will never be extradited to the US ... this is too public and the law is too clear... and the charges are well known.. he faces death.. and that protects him from extradition.. he cannot be extradited to a country where he faces death.. plain and simple..

This is why the USA hasn't even requested extradition .. they know it won't happen

The UK is in a bind because they are bound by law to extradite Assange to Australia .. so they are going to everything they can to live up to their obligations.. Assange wants to paint this as bigger than it is .. he's made it into a circus to avoid extradition .... The US isn't what he is worried about, he knows we can't touch him... he's a hero as far as I'm concerned, for releasing what he did ... but he's no saint.. I think he knows he's in trouble in Sweden..
edit on 8/16/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:55 PM
The UK is getting a bit of stick about this for no reason. Ecuador has already broken numerous articles of the vienna convetion. Ecuador has show disregard to UK and Swedish law. Ecuador knows the UK will extradite him regardless of what they do so giving him asylum in the UK, in a UK owned diplomatic building is purpose aggravation.

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Xertious
The UK is getting a bit of stick about this for no reason. Ecuador has already broken numerous articles of the vienna convetion. Ecuador has show disregard to UK and Swedish law. Ecuador knows the UK will extradite him regardless of what they do so giving him asylum in the UK, in a UK owned diplomatic building is purpose aggravation.

That's true... Ecuador should not have interfered with the host countries legal situation... but they did... so that was a jerk move for sure... however, Britain still won't do anything about it because violating Ecuador's sovereignty by raiding the embassy would set a HUGELY dangerous precedent..

Personally I think the UK is planning to, and is perfectly ok with... letting Assange stay in that tiny building for the rest of his life... he will either do that, or get so tired of being there that he leaves...

I'm still interested in the possibility of Assange becoming a citizen of Ecuador and then a diplomat... he could then be immune to anything in the UK... he wouldn't even have to leave

Suffice to say.. the next few months should be interesting..

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:32 PM
I think people need to find out the Sweden Connection in all this.

From what I hear, he had consensual sex with a woman and his rubber broke. She requested him get an HIV test and he refused which is sexual assault and battery according to Swedish law, or so I have read or termed rape in an overarching sense.

I mean, I would feel more sympathy if he had actually forced himself on someone but because a rubber broke we now have standoffs with international implications is just straight up madness.

Or am I wrong on this?

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:01 PM
I think people should read up a bit on the situation in Sweden as far as Assange's case.

It's pretty messy.

This is a bit of a long read, scroll to about half way if you like.

Moment of truth

Some quotes:

Yet by mid-year, the case was increasingly in question. Anna Ardin, one of the complainants, had added an accusation of physical sexual coercion, though she had earlier told a newspaper that Assange was ''not violent''. Tweets indicating a continued relationship with Assange vanished from the record, and were retrieved by bloggers; a leaked police file had a witness recalling one complainant saying she had been railroaded into making an accusation by the police and others.

When the leaked police report went into wider circulation, it did not take long for people to notice that the name of the initial investigating officer, Irmeli Krans, was familiar from somewhere else. In fact she was one of the links listed on the blogroll of Anna Ardin, the first complainant and organiser of Assange's visit to Sweden in August last year. That was unusual, though of itself not impossible - Stockholm is, in many ways, a small town. But the links rapidly proved beyond coincidence, many of them unearthed by Sweden's libertarian Flashback mega-blog.

The delay in securing a potentially vital piece of evidence remained unexplained, as did the process by which Ardin's accusation changed from a misdemeanour crime of annoyance to a felony, sexual coercion. The question as to why Ardin would have kept a torn condom for a week when she had no initial intention of going to the police also remained unanswered.

I have no doubt he'll be extradited there in some way, form or fashion soon.
What happens then needs more popcorn.

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:54 PM

Originally posted by moniker

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Jargonaut

Technically, the USG has a valid claim and a valid point. Assange is not only guilty of violating U.S. secrecy laws but still holds material of a National Security nature that would be of imminent threat if the argument can sure be made.

I have 0 sympathy to the Government's claim, but I certainly will admit they have one. Hmmmm....

You appear to say that US laws should apply worldwide, for any national.

In the same sense the USA have no right for him possibly breaking US laws as an Australian citizen, working outside the USA.
edit on 16/8/2012 by moniker because: (no reason given)

Actually, the US does have the right to ask for and chase any national, word wide, for crimes against America. So does ANY nation. The difference comes in for what other nations are willing to allow or tolerate.

If Fiji is after a corrupt business owner, not many nations will help...even with a treaty. If the US or Australia is hunting a corrupt business owner, odds are that the nation holding they guy will cough him up if it;s important enough to make a fuss over.

So... Yeah, America has every right. At the same time every OTHER nation has the right to say No. Someone isn't even considering a No answer here. That is the problem and I DO support Assange at this point.

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:05 PM
reply to post by JacKatMtn
This looks like the UK again acting the minion stooge for the U.S., Sweden doesen't care about some guy not useing a condom while with a "working girl". The U.S. has been imbarressed and they want pay back.
As usual the Brits will be America's stooge and most likely kill people to achive this task.

God save the Queen....................from America..........................I am an American, but a realist first and formost, what is happening here is pathetic for all involved.

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by misfitofscience
So here is an interesting thought to put all others to the test.

If Conspiracies are real, If there was some sort of secret government, if sources were killed by black ops, then I am sure someone causing this sort of malignancy or thorn in the side of so many (J.A) would be one of the first to be snuffed out, would he not be?

But alas he hasnt, which, makes me ponder, were conspiracies created to cover up the weak system we are lead to believe is stronger than they let on to be?

It's a well known fact that Assange has insurance against that sort of thing, this is why TPTB are using the current methods. Tehy have dirty laundry that is far more damaging in files that will be released if Assange dose die.

Getting him alive and getting the codes or what ever from him to neutralise insurance is prolly more important to those involved.

Once they have what they want and cannot be embarrassed by the full contents of the insurance files, I am sure Assange will in fact die.
edit on 8/16/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by JacKatMtn

I don't get the whole Julian Assange thing. Wikileaks has never informed me about anything I haven't already assumed. I'm going to stick to my gut feeling about him, which is that he works for some "intelligence" agency, and I can't bring myself to caring about his weird situation.

Ok, but your assumptions and proof are two different things. Plus, your assumptions aren't going to open peoples' eyes to the hypocrisy going on in government. What seems strange to me is all of this noise over Assange when he is apparently only wanted for "questioning." Had he been found guilty of murder or something, I could see all of this going on...But not for questioning. Plus, it would be different if they were going to question him in London as well, but no, they are wanting to extradite him for "questioning?" That is a big red flag imo that the US is clamoring for his head, and the English government wants to get him to Sweden asap, so Sweden can in turn hand him over to the US.

If he comes to the US, I see massive protests going on to defend his personal rights...Because the US government will treat him like a terrorist, and he is nothing of the sort. Just like Manning. Someone needed to break the rules and stand up to the machine that has overstepped its bounds. And these two men did just that with their actions. Anyone who thinks they are terrorists is thinking along the same lines as the US government, which supports true terrorism, and the negating of personal liberties...and those people are the problem. So anyone reading this who fits that criteria, YOU are the problem in the big scheme of things, because you don't feel change is necessary. You apparently feel the US government is within its right to do these things, and you would be wrong per the US Constitution, as well as international law.

Also, if they storm the embassy, how is that not an act of war? An embassy is foreign territory, and even in their own country, they should never be allowed to enter the embassy...Unless the dire need was present. To take into custody someone wanted for questioning, such an act is not justifiable. I can't believe they said that to be honest.
edit on 8/16/12 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:02 AM

Originally posted by purplemer

So, the truth will set you free, huh?

If the whole sexual assault charge is crap, then by all means then, show up for trial, beat them in court, then ask the Prosecutor to look into a false crime report.

Hiding in foreign embassies, skipping bails in deportation proceedings... all that doesn't exactly scream innocent.

One thing is, I wonder if he realises that he will actually be safer in Sweden than he will in Ecuador.

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:56 AM

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by purplemer

So, the truth will set you free, huh?

If the whole sexual assault charge is crap, then by all means then, show up for trial, beat them in court, then ask the Prosecutor to look into a false crime report.

Hiding in foreign embassies, skipping bails in deportation proceedings... all that doesn't exactly scream innocent.

One thing is, I wonder if he realises that he will actually be safer in Sweden than he will in Ecuador.

If people can't see that there is more to this than some tramp not getting the std test she wanted then they are beyond help, just look at all the fuss over this & that will tell you there is plenty more going on behind the scenes.

You're telling me you would volunteer to go to sweden for your "fair" trial & then be happy to be extradited by war criminals lol get real mate.
Where would his fair trial in America take place GITMO? Not like they haven't imprisoned our countrymen befor in torture camps.

The US violates international law all the time to suit it's own agenda, why would this time be any different. They would say for national security you have no right to know & either execute him or lock him in a torture camp for life.

Where does the American establishment get off calling treason on an Australian citizen FFS (more of their arogance) & where does our poor excuse for a PM get off publicly decrying a mans guilt before charges have even been laid.
Ecuador not only has a right but an obligation to give him asylum in the current situation and the Brits can shove that up their arse, he is in real danger of not receiving a fair trial and possibly being murdered by Americans. How is that not entitled to asylum.

Look at the bigger picture for god sake.

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:11 AM

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:16 AM
Maybe I am naive for thinking this, but wouldn't anyone who is seeking asylum @ an embassy be doing so because they are wanted by the officials of the nation in which the embassy resides? Isn't this the primary reason embassies offer asylum on the premise of sovereign soil?

Have the British ever granted asylum to anyone on foreign soil to the disdain of the government in which their embassy resides?

The British may have legal precedent by their law to raid the embassy, but are they upholding the standard they have set and expect for others to abide?

IF they do raid the embassy, what precedent will this set for British/Western embassies worldwide?

I understand the US wants to throw the book @ Assange so they can set an example for others who might want to disseminate classified information. However, i am of the same perception as many others that we are compromising too many of our own 'lauded' values to do this.

It seems to me the price for Assange is much higher than any benefit we may receive from prosecuting him.

Unless...there is more to the story? Does he have classified information far more valuable than anything which we have yet seen?

edit on 17-8-2012 by MuonSpin because: typo

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:49 AM
reply to post by MuonSpin

You may have missed it being mentioned earlier in the thread, but in a way, yes.... Assange has over 1 gig of classified material that hasn't been made public yet. I say that is true in a way because it's the "insurance" file millions of people around the world downloaded in Dec, 2010. It's the good stuff above anything they did release.

It's encrypted and rumor has it even the NSA has come up snake eyes on busting it so far. If they have, they haven't taken credit yet...and no one else has either. Assange has the Key to his insurance file.

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:53 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I have heard about this. And I thought I read somewhere there was a key released on Pirate Bay at one point? I suppose that must not be the case.

Hmm...wonder what is on this file... wonder even more what method Uncle Sam plans to use to extract this key from Assange.. Tickle torture would not be my first guess.

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by MuonSpin

There have been two files. The first one, released in December of 2010, has never been opened or cracked. It's his ultimate insurance policy and he built it before all hell broke loose... The second file (wikileaks-insurance-20120222.tar.bz2.aes) is 69,061,779,456 bytes for the size. ...Or so Mr Smith told me earlier. He's a very helpful fellow, I'll tell ya.

The second one had a key come out fairly quickly and worked fine. It had a misc collection of stuff and nothing earth shattering. Easy enough to find unencrypted around the net now.

His first file... Who knows. Could be anything. Wiki-leaks was said to have entire hard drives out of BofA computers and other things from places all over the world. They were getting material from everywhere before becoming focused on Iraq. I really want to see the contents some day!

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in