Britain threatens to storm Ecuador embassy to get Assange

page: 3
87
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
The United States government must be pulling in some big favors with Sweden and Britain. First to get Sweden to dummy up some "rape" charges against Assange, then to get Sweden to passively agree to ship Assange to the US (not publicly stated but we know that's exactly what will happen), and now they're getting Britain to raid another nation's embassy. All to get Julian Assange. He really kicked over some ant hills with Wikileaks.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Can't stand Assange or those who defend him Assange running around free while his patsy Manning sits in prison more or less.

Assange needs to be spending some quality time at the same 5 star resort Manning is hope Britian does get him.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 

Wtf? I went there and started talking about the Cubic Corp CEO's death on June 30th and the thread was deleted. Do they usually delete threads in mid discussion? Who decides to delete the threads at 4chan?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


So wrabbit how big is that file anyways?


I'm not sure where some of the rumors came from about the size of it. It's not big in modern terms.....except that I recall a lot being said at the time that a great deal may be in email files, text files and that sort of thing. In that form, it's absolutely enormous. Depends entirely on what the format of the material inside is. It's plenty if it's his cherry picked best of the very best.

Now I seem to have had a tragic accident here and lost my copy.


However, a friend of a friend of my buddy Mr Smith sent me a screen shot of what the original Dec 2010 Insurance file might look like....you know, if someone actually had a copy of it.



Hope that helps for curiosity, if nothing else..



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
reply to post by hadriana
 

Wtf? I went there and started talking about the Cubic Corp CEO's death on June 30th and the thread was deleted. Do they usually delete threads in mid discussion? Who decides to delete the threads at 4chan?


Oh I dunno. I don't think we are supposed to post links here though to that site. I did it without thinking so I deleted it, that's all. That site is crawling with feds, kids, hackers. It is weird how it can be so juvenile but still get 'stuff done.'

Here's another stream: www.livestream.com... right now looks like Julian Assange in the cypherpunks interview. Good stuff. That will supposedly have live stream later on. Everyone's calling for occupy to protect him. We'll see. 1pm that time seems to be the time - still awhile off.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
Oh I dunno. I don't think we are supposed to post links here though to that site. I did it without thinking so I deleted it, that's all.


You're right and I'm not re-posting it but I am unfamiliar with 4chan habits on thread removal...I had just gotten there so yeah I am thinking It's because I was posting connections to other informations using Cubic Corp as the link - which it is.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
"Storm" is a hype word in this case, what actually should be being reported is that the UK is considering revoking the status of the embassy as it harbours someone that British Courts have resolved to extradite from the UK to Sweden - in essence creating a legal loophole.



Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said the letter from the UK to Ecuador stated: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy.

"We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."

It went on: "We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna Convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations."

www.bbc.co.uk...

I think the UK Governments position is clear - nobody seems to be questioning the legality and stance of the Ecuadorians who are, for all intents and purposes, harbouring a fugitive from the British Legal system.

Just because Assange has a cult of personality surrounding him doesn't mean that he shouldn't be treated any differently from anyone else facing the allegations in front of him.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Just because Assange has a cult of personality surrounding him doesn't mean that he shouldn't be treated any differently from anyone else facing the allegations in front of him.


Breaking diplomacy over a broken condom is acceptable then, is it?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Netties Hermit
 


Well there are alternative methods.....

www.argoasecurity.com...

Your (or his) level of daring is all that is needed to finalize the equation.

Cheers to you



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 

I agree with you, if you read the letter they are just stating "that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy."


I think the UK Governments position is clear - nobody seems to be questioning the legality and stance of the Ecuadorians who are, for all intents and purposes, harbouring a fugitive from the British Legal system.

Which begs the question - are they harbouring a fugitive or contemplating asylum?
How long do they have to make this decision?
Is there any precedent for a case such as this?

The stalling tactics would seem to be in vain anyway because it would seem he is going to be arrested the moment he steps out that door whether he is granted asylum or not.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Quite Right

Here Here

God Save The Queen


Yet, there are some sticky anomolies involving this particular case.

C=Could be a Moneymaker.

Delayed Forfeiture of Resolve,,,,



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I can see Ecuador's point though - he is NOT a murderer. They are going to extradict him to get him to the USA, and the USA wants to kill him - with no charges pressed - US politicians have called for him to be MURDERED.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
It seems they really want to have a war, next thing you know they'll be blaming it all on Assange.

Ministers and american politcians saying "well he should have come quietly, now we've had to kill all those innocent people!" yaddah yaddah



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I think the UK Governments position is clear - nobody seems to be questioning the legality and stance of the Ecuadorians who are, for all intents and purposes, harbouring a fugitive from the British Legal system.

British Legal System? What did he do to the Brits?

I suppose that embassies now are nevermore an asylum for people seeking to escape injustice? Or only here?

That is precisely what they are there for. To provide asylum. I won't question the stance of the Equadorans either. They know the risk to their standing with all parties involved. They are also grateful to Assange, for some of those leaks exposed the skullduggery of the Americans in their own country.

Thats why he picked them. Thats why he interviewed the Equadoran president on his show on RT (page 1 of this thread). Thats why they accepted him into their embassy and just today granted him diplomatic asylum. That is why the Brits have not gone in up till now. They had to think up an excuse first. They also know what violating Equadoran private property means to their reputation.

But really, all the players, (Sweden, UK, and America) will play along with the rules and at the same time be itching to get their mitts on him to meet out some payback.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Netties Hermit
 


Is there any precedent for a case such as this?

There is an incident that occurred back in 1985. America at that time only responded over international waters. And these were scum sucking murdering terrorists who killed someone in a wheel chair and threw his body overboard. Different world back then. This a very short version, but will give enough data to research further :

www.specialoperations.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by neformore
 


I think the UK Governments position is clear - nobody seems to be questioning the legality and stance of the Ecuadorians who are, for all intents and purposes, harbouring a fugitive from the British Legal system.

British Legal System? What did he do to the Brits?

Yes. Really he has only breached his bail conditions when it boils right down to it. Though they are the ones responsible for the extradition yes?


I suppose that embassies now are nevermore an asylum for people seeking to escape injustice? Or only here?

Whilst I'm currently on the fence and think this case is fascinating, I don't see any "injustice" having occured yet. Only a perceived injustice.
So far Sweden, Britain and the US have not charged him with anything. So to claim asylum for a "perceived" risk of being extradited to the US at this stage is just a time-stalling tactic imho.


That is why the Brits have not gone in up till now. They had to think up an excuse first. They also know what violating Equadoran private property means to their reputation.

I read an article earlier that said that AP has found no record of the 1987 law that London is citing ever being used to justify forcible entry into an embassy.



And thanks for the link intrptr. I'll definitely look into that in the morning.

Fascinating stuff.

edit on 16/8/2012 by Netties Hermit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


tptb brainwashing worked a treat on you eh ... do you always automatically defend tptb ... was it an automated response .. or a well thought out intellectual opinion ?

assange didnt put 'bradley' manning in where he is ... the authorities did ....
assange did not make manning whistleblow classified material ... manning did this himself ...

the authorities are the wrong doers here .... am quite sure both manning & assange would rather there was no evil to expose in the first place ... but you make it appear they are the ones being dramatic .. not the poloticians ... and only doing all this for their own personal ego trip ...
yes .. uncle sam loves you .. batter in ... pfft

can you guess from the tone of my reply .. who i cant stand



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Asylum and extradition and only agreements between nations. Legally, they are not "your" territory in another nation (as we are led to believe).

I do not defend the actions going on here, i don't agree with them. However, it has to be said that legally there is nothing wrong with this action. There is literally nothing to stop the Police marching into the embassy and searching room to room until they find him, apart from the ensuing diplomatic rows that would follow.

As i stated in the other thread on this topic, apparently these types of cases are usually settled away from the glare of the media. The person seeking asylum is usually put on transport for the airport / port / border crossing and that transport is generally then pulled over and the person arrested.

Totally not what we expect and i was shocked to find this to be the case but there it is.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Let this simply show how Britain is the puppet of the USA.

How many UK citizens have been deported to the US. One way traffic, the USA is GOD when it comes to the UK foreign policy.





new topics
 
87
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join