Britain threatens to storm Ecuador embassy to get Assange

page: 5
87
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Updated: 10:13 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012 | Posted: 10:13 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012

Sweden summons Ecuador's ambassador

www.journal-news.com/ap/ap/social-issues/ecuador-decision-on-assange-asylum-due/nRCd9/


The Associated Press

LONDON —

The Swedish Foreign Ministry says it has summoned Ecuador's ambassador over the Latin American country's decision to grant WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange asylum.

The decision to grant Assange asylum may interrupt British efforts to extradite the Australian ex-hacker to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on sexual misconduct allegations. Assange is currently hold up in Ecuador's embassy in London.

Stockholm Foreign Ministry spokesman Anders Jorle said Thursday, "We want to tell them that it's inacceptable that Ecuador is trying to stop the Swedish judicial process."




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
As a Brit I wish our govt would storm the banks and arrest the banksters. Who have committed worse crimes than Julian. This is a complete load of crap and I hope Julian manages to get to Ecudor. So he`s a criminel for telling the truth and exposing the crimes of govts? This from a govt that is funding terrorists in Syria?


I think your suggestion would go down well with most British people.
Plus the issuance of currency is fraudulent in that it is no more than the issuance of debt.

Once Usury - The profiting of one by the loss of another was considered a sin.

Beat an animal for long enough and it will become subservient to your wishes.
But beware when the animal turns



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by discolo
 


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


They could just just sail a Predator overhead, drop a Hellfire missile thru the window and call it "even". We do that everywhere else we feel like it without regard to international law...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
You don't DO that. No matter how tough it makes you seem and how much of a bump it gives you in the polls. You don't hop on public TV and call for someone's murder at any cost. We have courts. We have law.

Of course Assange has embarrassed these people so bad they seem to have forgotten that.


Of course the US does that, they've been doing it for over a decade now. George "the idiot" Bush, put up a deck of cards, with men he wanted murdered. Bin Ladin was murdered and dumped into the sea ... of course, "everyone knows" Bin Ladin did it ... yeah right ... did what? Yeah, right ... from his cave in Afghanistan ... and then conveniently murdered when he was of no use.

There is a court for all this, but unfortunately the courts have only "americans" in them (the Haag). And it's not a court, it's an Inquisiition. Do you know the difference, between an Inquisition and a court? In a court you actually have a probability of getting out,if you can prove your innocense ... in an Inquisition, it's just a formality to judge you. Which do you think the Haag is? And if leaders of nations can be charged with crimes committed under their rules, why is GW Bush walking free? Is there a "doubt" there were crimes committed during his reign? Of course not ... but in the case of the US, the crime is committed by the guy with the Gun. When it's your enemy, the crime committed is the responsibility of the surpreme commander ...

The "people" in Syria are committing the crimes ... the "people" who are walking with Guns, and dressing themselves up as Soldiers. It's not Assad walking along the streets, and committing these crimes on his own ... but the US, gives mass murderers an escape clause ... "Murder Assad, and we'll forgive you for murdering women and children".

So, in effect, the US and Britain, have been "calling" for mass murder for decades. And the murderers go free, if they do "the US biddings". And in some cases, even rewarded with millions, as was the case in Iraq.

There is full reason, to take these "threats" seriously.
edit on 16/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
From banking to 9/11 what other conspiracy can you apply to it!

Again, his profession should not immune himself from the law.
Also, public opinion should not effect law. The law decides the law. And you do NOT know if he assaulted them women or not, so you have no say whether they're trumped up charges or not. You can think its a conspiracy to get him to America, but you do not know what happened with those women.

He should of just gone to Sweden and got it over and done with and if they tried to send him to the US, then he fights it. Rather than fighting a hypothetical situation.

To me it looks like he's fighting really hard to avoid sexual assault charges, he's fighting so hard to avoid that (he's not actually doing anything to stop him being sent to the us). I think he assaulted those two women, and is worried about public opinion of him.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 

Uh huh. Good point. Hypocrisy is the norm. The problem only arises when they are exposed for it. Then they seek "justice", because their carefully contrived house of lies comes crashing down with but a single video. Although they downplay and minimize their desire to get ahold of Assange, that is their objective. This belies their true nature.

Public reasons to go to war and invade other countries are based on lies and any one who exposes that to the light of day is the real enemy (to them). And their open attentions to civility, diplomacy and justice are all fronts which hide their real intentions. All they know is power, greed and in this case punishment for exposing their real agenda.

As long as Assange remains in the public eye, they gnash teeth trying to justify more illegal action in achieving their aims. Why is it so really hard for them to arrest one guy when they so easily kill millions with impunity? Because they are in the wrong and they know it.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Xertious
 


He has not been charged by sweden, and they only want to ask him questions.
Sweden has been given the opportinity to ask these questions....



Patino also reiterated Ecuador's offer to allow Sweden to interview Assange in their embassy in London, which was turned down. Stockholm would neither guarantee that the WikiLeaks founder would not be extradited again once he is on Swedish soil.

source

So to refuse to accept the opportunity to ask these questions shows there is an ulterior motive to the extradition



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

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.


As you said, you assumed a lot of things. Assange provided the proof so now you KNOW those things you assumed are true. IMO, that is not the work of an intelligence agency, that is the work of someone who is trying to get the truth out to back up the numerous claims about the atrocities our government commits.

Intelligence agencies spread disinfo and misinformation to muddy the waters and turn people off from wanting to know the truth. Most people are too lazy to do the research find out which information has the facts to back it up and which does not. Intelligence agencies don't provide hard evidence to reveal their unsavory deeds.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Sweden asked for him to be extradited. The British courts found no reason to block the extradition. The Ecuadorians are therefore blocking the British legal system, and - as is stated - going against the Vienna convention.

Who, exactly is breaking diplomacy?


Whoa....Julian went to them; Ecuador didn't fly in to Britan, find him and drag him to their Embassy. You're saying that an Embassy now has to do what the host nation says in order to maintain diplomacy - that's a bunch of BS. Further, this decision took months which means Ecuador went through all the definitions and legal jargon to likely find no precedent for this specifically and to ascertain that they are perfectly within legal boundaries as far as their actions are concerned.

So Britain would indeed be breaking diplomacy - Not Ecuador.



Even if they grant him asylum - and it appears they have - he is still mandated to be extradited from Britain. Is he going to spend the rest of his life in the embassy?


I wonder that as well...



The man is an attention whore. If he was genuinely ever sitting on anything of importance he'd have been dead a long time ago, and if you don't think that happens ask Dr. David Kelly about it.


Whats the difference between the two?

Looks like that attention whoring could be operating as a defense mechanism. Besides - I don't think it means what you think it means. It's a stupid accusation to make in light of all the very real breaches of human rights that have been exposed and which will continue to be exposed.

Do you think that whoever is killing David Kelly and his fellow microbiologists are going to say that there is a conspiracy? Look into Penn State, MK-Ultra and one of their sub projects involving microbiology. Now consider that they just got floored with one of the biggest university scandals in history. There is likely a lot more at play here than many people are aware of...something that makes a broken condom one of the most laughable international incidents ever )I could explain why they chose the charges they did if you're interested in a lesson on populace dissociation inclinations and opinion persuasion)...

I think the insurance file is more important then you think and that is why he is still alive...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I do believe that he has not yet been charged with rape. Just wanted for questioning? For having sex without protection? Thats rape? Not here in the UK it isnt. So why dont they just go and question him in the embassy? Why have they refused to reveal if he will be rendictioned to the USA? Others have been taken from Sweden and imprisoned illegally in gitmo. Or places like Lybia before Gadaffi was murdered. Our govt are nothing but a bunch of lying two faced a$$ holes.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
This is great news. Finally a nation has stepped up against the UK and told my government to sit and swivel.


Right now I am disgusted by my government. The idea that they would threaten the very principal of diplomatic mission to give America what it wants is insane.

I would not be at all surprised if British diplomats all over the world were now asked to answer to their host nations about the safety of their own diplomats in the UK. All governments around the world should now be DEMANDING that the UK make its position clear on the status of their London embassies.

Cameron should be unemployed by the end of the month if people take this as seriously as it is. However, I don't think people really understand the magnitude of the situation here.

The UK government has basically destroyed centuries of trust with other nations, telling the world that we believe we can just attack their embassies whenever the USA demands it. This is a question of national sovereignty and diplomatic trust, and Cameron could now be responsible for destroying the UK's diplomatic relations with hundreds of countries built up over centuries. This is just not acceptable.

Cameron should be out of office NOW!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
I do believe that he has not yet been charged with rape. Just wanted for questioning? For having sex without protection? Thats rape? Not here in the UK it isnt. So why dont they just go and question him in the embassy? Why have they refused to reveal if he will be rendictioned to the USA? Others have been taken from Sweden and imprisoned illegally in gitmo. Or places like Lybia before Gadaffi was murdered. Our govt are nothing but a bunch of lying two faced a$$ holes.


Sweden dropped the charges when they found that there was no case to answer. It was then resurrected mysteriously when the USA decided that they wanted him.

Sweden has refused to guarantee that Mr. Assange will not be handed over to the USA - a nation globally recognized as breaking international law and a nation guilty of Human rights abuses. The USA is a nation that supports the use of torture and allows for indefinite detention and extra-judicial killings - all of these things fly in the face of international law.

Mr. Assange has agreed to answer any questions the Swedish government has on the case (the case that was previously THROWN OUT). But Sweden has declined that offer - why?

The British decision to allow him to be extradited is clearly a corrupt one. Our courts in this instance were influenced by government, and they acted against all know and accepted laws to allow this to go through. In any other instance we would have been supporting the individuals right to protection against politically motivated extradition - as we have with Russia and China in the past. But because it's America influencing Sweden our justice system failed and allowed an incorrect decision to be made.

The ramifications of this entire case are growing by the day. What was once a nasty instance of the US demanding things from other countries because they wanted vengeance for Wikileaks exposing them has now become a threat to UK diplomatic relations all around the world.

If the UK does anything to try to get Assange into US hands our government will lose the support of the British people, they will lose trust with every country with an embassy in London, and they will set something truly ugly in motion.

The UK government needs to stand down right now and allow Assange to leave the UK for Ecuador. America needs to stop its mindless pursuit of Assange and accept that they f'ed up. Sweden needs to grow a pair and stop being a US puppet.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Netties Hermit
 

Thanks for the reply.


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.

Amazing huh? They just makin up stuff as they go? Oh wait, theres that public eye again.
Damned public eyes...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Breaking News (on yahoo news) William Hague as said Assange will not get a safe passage if he attempts to leave the country
edit on 16-8-2012 by saddlesee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
You are ... the british are.

Any man can enter an embassy, and request a political assylum.


He broke the terms of his bail in the UK, and entered the embassy, where he hid behind their diplomatic status for months before they considered granting him asylum - which they now have done as a cheap publicity stunt because the British Government said they would look to revoke the status of the embassy to go in an arrest him.

Assange is playing silly buggers with the British establishment here and - frankly - the establishment doesn't take kindly to that sort of thing at all. Folks may not like it but that's the way it is

A statement was made to the world in 1980 by the UK. You do not, under any circumstances, bite the hand of the British government when it comes to the status of an Embassy on UK soil.

Simple as that.

The precedent here will not be allowed to stand, because this week its Assange - next week it could be one of the worlds most wanted terrorists, or arms dealer, or drug dealer, or murderer seeking assistance from a "friendly" embassy.

You guys in the states would be happy for people wanted for questioning by US Authorities over there to jump bail and hide in an embassy in Washington? I don't think so.





edit on 16/8/12 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by saddlesee
Breaking News (on yahoo news) William Hague as said Assange will not get a safe passage if he attmpts to leave the country


I just saw that on the BBC and wondered if it was new, because it's linking to the same story with no visible mention of Hague saying that.

But I guess this is true if multiple sources are now rolling with it.

This is very worrying. As I mentioned in my previous posts on this we have already damaged diplomatic relations with every nation that has an embassy in London. It might not be public and open, but you can guarantee that every nation with a London embassy is now looking at the suggestion or statement that we can raid any embassy we like.

The UK signed an international agreement that no embassy shall ever be breached in such a way. No law can be created to remove that from the agreement. The UK is breaching its own diplomatic contract if they step one foot inside that embassy without the express permission of the diplomatic mission.

Things are about to get interesting. Either Assange will have to remain in the embassy until the situation changes, or the Ecuadorian diplomats will have to try to smuggle him out. If the UK breaches the embassy agreement we are truly f'ed.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


Regarding getting him out of the country, it is tricky, but is possible.
just by stepping out the door of the embassy, he can be arrested before he manages to get into the diplomatic car whers he would be safe, and there are other opportinities they can gey to arrest him along the way.

I did however just catch a snippet on sky news, but cant remember the full details.
It is along the lines of:
Equador make him a citizen of their country.
Then they can give hom a position (cant remembet which) within the embassy in london, which does give him the diplomatic entitlement.
He then cant be touched.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by djyorkie
Equador make him a citizen of their country.
Then they can give hom a position (cant remembet which) within the embassy in london, which does give him the diplomatic entitlement.
He then cant be touched.


This is intriguing!

As I understand it, the Ecuadorian government has made him a citizen, so it wouldn't be a stretch to make him a diplomat too.

If this does indeed grant him immunity, the UK government wouldn't be able to do anything but eject him from the country. And Ecuador would be the nation welcoming him.

It would be interesting to know for sure what diplomatic immunity guarantees though. I'm sure the UK/US government would be able to think up something. Maybe they would suddenly change the law to make all diplomats open to arrest without charge?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Hes screwed.

No matter if they are ABLE for him to have immunity it wouldn't matter. You think after the whole world is seeing whats going on they are going to let him walk? They already promised he wouldn't leave and there isn't anyway possible that they will look beaten back by JA and Ecuador.

I think he deserves it. Play with the States and they play back. I doubt he thought it would come to this. That his popularity and his occult following would get him out. His days are numbered. Yes he did let out a bunch of truths that made our politcians look like the scum they are. Second hand he endangered lives that didn't have anyhing to do with it.
edit on 16-8-2012 by JWalk89 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-8-2012 by JWalk89 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JWalk89
Second hand he endangered lives that didn't have anyhing to do with it.
edit on 16-8-2012 by JWalk89 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-8-2012 by JWalk89 because: (no reason given)


How, exactly?

I'm sick of this US BS about him "endangering" lives. Your GOVERNMENT endangered those live through their actions and corruption.

If the Police murder someone in custody, and an officer then speaks out about it, is he then guilty of "endangering" the lives of those officers?

Absolute crap. This is not an excuse, and there is no one to blame other than those making those corrupt decisions - ie, your own government and military!





new topics
top topics
 
87
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join