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.

 

Britain threatens to storm Ecuador embassy to get Assange

page: 12
87
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

From Jargonaut's post (what I've been replying to)


The whole thing is so blatantly in our faces corrupt on the part of the US gov it's an insult and so spineless on the part of the UK gov it's embarrassing.


The law is the law and the fact it IS being followed is the opposite of corruption. I don't like it, but that isn't the question.
Using law for something other than it's intended purpose is corrupt but we could argue back and forth about definitions that so I'll leave it there.


It also mentions Coercion for the United Kingdom?? How would that play into anything? Assange's releases burned U.K. secrets as well as the U.S. and those who followed Wiki-leaks well before it became a household name know he was an equal opportunity 'reporter'.
....the UK almost certainly has their own hard feelings and no warm concerns toward what ultimately happens to Assange.
No doubt there are some UK gov officials somewhere that were not pleased by some leaks as are those of many countries but the UK aren't seeking to acquire him for any investigation related to them. If the UK wanted to take issue with him they've had plenty of opportunity.

What's the general feeling in the US towards Assange? If you read comments on UK news sites about this the vast majority are pretty disgusted with the UK government and see right through this whole facade and actually support Assange against what is blatant and open attempts at gaming the system by the US to get their hands on him for some kind of revenge. I don't follow US news sites although I have previously been aware of some demonisation of Assange in the US labelling him as some kind of US troop killer. What's the balance of opinion there?




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
So many people here who should know better are falling for this Assange false flag; he's a Rothschild, all is not as it seems!



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by drbatstein
So many people here who should know better are falling for this Assange false flag; he's a Rothschild, all is not as it seems!


I have missed that piece of evidence somewhere along the line.
Could you please link me to the proof.
Thanks



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by djyorkie
 


Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies.




Good article

As I said in This Post
AP has found no record of the 1987 law that London is citing EVER being used to justify forcible entry into an embassy.
This is unprecedented.




edit on 17/8/2012 by Netties Hermit because: oops



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
After all of this, I have no doubt Sweden will have absolutely no problem handing Assange over to U.S. officials… especially if the Brits go ahead and nab him out of that embassy.

I believe they will find a legal loophole to get this done even if the U.S. will not take DP off the table.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by drbatstein
So many people here who should know better are falling for this Assange false flag; he's a Rothschild, all is not as it seems!


Looks more like a Hilton if you ask me



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
IMO i think Assange is just a scapegoat; wiki-leaks is more than just one man, i think TPTB want him so they can use him as an example, to show the rest of us what happens when you try to 'fight the system'.

Personally i would've sought asylum in the Chinese embassy, they wouldn't have the 'family jewels' to raid that.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
It does seem like the Australian govt is just turning their back and ignoring the situation.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Thecakeisalie
 


I somehow doubt the Chinese are any friendlier to Wikileaks than the US are. The bastards will support each other behind the scene.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Thecakeisalie
 

It all comes down to politics, and who he felt safest with.
Equador is a good choice for him fir a number of reasons.....



Ecuador’s anti-American stance.
But why did Assange choose Ecuador of all countries? The fugitive probably remembered that its leftist government had briefly offered him residency in 2010 at the height of the WikiLeaks furore, though it later backed off. A stronger argument, though, is the strong anti-American stance of the Ecuadorean government, according to Jean-Jacques Kourliandsky, a Latin America specialist at France’s Insitute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS). “[Assange] turned to the only embassy that will not hand him over to the US, the one most resistant to US pressure” he told FRANCE 24. “He could not seek refuge at the embassies of Mexico or Colombia, for example, since the former is a member of [free-trade bloc] NAFTA and the latter a strong ally of the US. Either one would have handed him over to the US within days.” Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa has also made a name for himself as a vocal critic of the powerful, including the American government and oil companies. “Correa is still rankled by the Chevron case [the US-based oil company refuses to pay a multibillion-dollar fine to clean up contamination from drilling and production in the Amazon jungle],” Jean-Jacques Kourliandsky added. “Ecuador is also a member of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (known by its Spanish acronym ALBA), a group of Latin-American states very critical of US presence in the region. Two months ago, Quito even refused to attend the Summit of the Americas in Colombia because Cuba had not been invited.” Ecuador was also the only country to expel a diplomat as a result of allegations made by WikiLeaks. US ambassador Heather Hodges was asked to leave Quito in April 2011 after the whistle-blowing website released a US diplomatic cable alleging police corruption in Ecuador. Diplomatic relations have since been restored.

source (mobile site, not sure if it works for others)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Soulece
 


To be fair, he is a criminal, most hackers are criminals, they steal information and break into private/secure networks... Not sure how he isnt a criminal


Because he has not done that. If you can provide evidence to show that he has committed any criminal act I'd really like to see it.

This is the level of ignorance we are dealing with in this case.

People who barely have the ability to comprehend English hear the name Assange and immediately think "hacker" because their precious MSM has drummed it into them. They forget that Wikileaks is a source of information - not a hacking group!

Manning didn't hack anything, he had access to the information, and he followed his moral conscience to get that information out. He found evidence of criminal activity, lies, corruption, collusion and immorality, information that the American people should know if they are supporting the actions of their government, and he made a moral call to expose it.

He gathered that information and handed it over to Wikileaks, who then published it through news sources and their own site.

This IS NOT HACKING!

America is crucifying a young serving military man for daring to have morals. And they are pursuing the person who shared that information with the people who SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW.

That is what is so sick about America right now. Manning did something for the American people, and few give a damn. Assange forced your elected to be answerable to their own people.

The fact that so few citizens seem to give a damn about either is something Americans should be ashamed of.
edit on 17-8-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
It turns out that the UK didn't actually threaten to 'storm' the embassy.
Plus legal pundits doubt the UK would take the legal measures to allow them entry.

But the whole thing stinks imo. He has not even been charged with anything. They could either come and interview him here in the UK (it's been done before). He could even be interviewed by video link ffs! Or he could go to Sweden with a guarantee that he won't be extradited to US. But they won't do the first and they won't give the guarantee. Why?

If US had a credible justice system it would be different. But they are known to be particularly vengeful on some issues. Just look at the UK peeps they have gone after. And on this issue, there are even people calling for his death. Plus you are likely to get put into an orange jump suit and disappeared for an age till any trial. It's well know that many innocent people plea bargain to avoid this.
edit on 17-8-2012 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2012 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueflash
It does seem like the Australian govt is just turning their back and ignoring the situation.


They said on news before this happened they would never even allow him back in country let me see if I can find a link.
edit on 17-8-2012 by JWalk89 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
There's a lot of information out there, watch who's agenda he is serving

Start here




Originally posted by djyorkie

Originally posted by drbatstein
So many people here who should know better are falling for this Assange false flag; he's a Rothschild, all is not as it seems!


I have missed that piece of evidence somewhere along the line.
Could you please link me to the proof.
Thanks



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Does anyone else think it odd that Assange was able to get to the embassy in the first place? Don't they think ahead? My gut says this is a show, but my head says he knows something big.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Wait...
I'm not that knowledgeable on international laws or anything like that but, aren't embassies sovereign terrain?
I mean, if the UK "storms" Ecuador embassy, wouldn't that be a severe violation of some international laws?
Wouldn't that be the equivalent of invading a foreign country?

Sounds like they are willing to risk a world wide diplomatic problems for that?

Smells fishy *nod*



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   


Originally posted by jhn7537

To be fair, he is a criminal, most hackers are criminals, they steal information and break into private/secure networks... Not sure how he isnt a criminal


Then why don't we hear of anyone raiding the Google H.Q?

Google fined $22m for Safari privacy breach



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by drbatstein
 


Sorru, but sitting through that 5 mmin video, with too much info is beyond me.
I prefer to go and read evidence from reliable sources, rather than have info pushed at me through an unknown video.
From what I can tell, because he used a big law firm that has worked with a rothschild firm, and because some rothschild cinnected person posted his bail, that makes it that he has an ulterior motive?
If thats the case, there are too many flaws for me.
1. Regarding the bail... Couldnt anyone who chose to help him have done that? What if some israeli had posted that.. Would that have made him a leader in the zionist movement?
2. Regarding the law firm. If you choose to use a certain law firm, do you examine every one of their clients? Or do you use them because they are good?? If its a good law firm, you can guarantee that some shady people have also used them.
even if he does have a rothschild connection, does that mean he has the same agenda?
I am sure that there will be blood relatives around if hitler... I dont see loads of hitler family popping up to take over the world.
I guess I will have to look and find 100% evidence of rothschild agenda, and 100% evidence that assange is working for that agenda. If it isnt 100% proof, then its purely speculative and hear-say.
Guess I will have to go off and find this for myself.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by moniker
 

I didn't say I liked what the US was doing or that I really think it's right ethically or just in any sense of fairness as we're constantly saying we're all about in public.

The question was simply DO they have a claim. Yes. The United States absolutely has a valid claim and under international law and treaty, on a strictly factual basis, they absolutely DO have the right to pursue anyone guilty of American violations of law........to the extent the host nation permits or agrees to it.


The United States has not made a claim.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Check it all out for yourself, you'll be left in no doubt. Start watching carefully the information that is released, you'll soon realize that it all serves the agenda of House of Rothschild. They use WikiLeaks to take down powerful enemies and to start revolutions which they control. Notice how they recently leaked information in an attempt to weaken the Syrian government, as they want to put a Central Bank in place in Damascus (turning all Syrians into Rothschild slaves)

One of the biggest giveaways of all of course is when Assange says that 9/11 is a “false conspiracy”

What's going on here is that the Rothschilds are trying to infiltrate the conspiracy movement and eventually take control of it, using it as a weapon against their enemies and dismissing any REAL evidence of their own crimes.

The BBC recently had a documentary that went through a lot of the WikiLeaks information in great detail, this is the BBC the biggest Western Propaganda outlet on the planet. If we weren't meant to see the leaks there would have been a blackout on BBC, like they blackout on Vaccine Damage. The Rothschild BBC are trying to take over the conspiracy movement and turn it into one that serves their agenda.


Originally posted by djyorkie
reply to post by drbatstein
 


Sorru, but sitting through that 5 mmin video, with too much info is beyond me.
I prefer to go and read evidence from reliable sources, rather than have info pushed at me through an unknown video.
From what I can tell, because he used a big law firm that has worked with a rothschild firm, and because some rothschild cinnected person posted his bail, that makes it that he has an ulterior motive?
If thats the case, there are too many flaws for me.
1. Regarding the bail... Couldnt anyone who chose to help him have done that? What if some israeli had posted that.. Would that have made him a leader in the zionist movement?
2. Regarding the law firm. If you choose to use a certain law firm, do you examine every one of their clients? Or do you use them because they are good?? If its a good law firm, you can guarantee that some shady people have also used them.
even if he does have a rothschild connection, does that mean he has the same agenda?
I am sure that there will be blood relatives around if hitler... I dont see loads of hitler family popping up to take over the world.
I guess I will have to look and find 100% evidence of rothschild agenda, and 100% evidence that assange is working for that agenda. If it isnt 100% proof, then its purely speculative and hear-say.
Guess I will have to go off and find this for myself.

edit on 17-8-2012 by drbatstein because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
87
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join