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: 9
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by moniker

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by moniker
 


If the United States have no plans to extradite him then why is he scared? I feel like this we're talking in circles right now... It was stated that he wouldnt go to sweden because he was scared of being extradited to USA, but then you said USA stated they dont care, so which is it? If he did no crime, if the United States arent interested in him then why hide from them?


Perhaps because US political officials have publicly, on TV, stated (actually, screamed) that they want to see him dead, killed.

I don't know about you, but if it was me, I would be very, very concerned.


Ok, so formal charges havent been set, but the US is still VERY interested in him then and if they had the chance they LIKELY would extradite him to USA....

I also wouldnt believe anything the US Govt. says... They definitely have interest in him, they likely dont want to do it publicly... If he does have confidential files, they probbaly want to torture him to get that info out and we all know that would be pretty tough if he was brought in with the whole world watching...


edit on 16-8-2012 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
I guess we'll never know hoe many people this sociopathic wannabe God has killed.


Killed? You mean with his own bare hands? Because I haven't seen any mention of him owning any sort of weapon (heavens forbid, that would have made him either a Lone Wolf(tm) or a Terrorist(r)).
edit on 16/8/2012 by moniker because: Typo.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


It does not matter if that law is in place or not.
If britain acted on it, other countries will see this as going against diplomacy, and will loose respect.
Just because a bully makes a rule, does not make the rule right.
Just because britain makes a law, does not make that law right in the eyes of other countries.
Britain has more to loose out of thus than the rest of the world



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
What is really fun about this stuff is the old goose and gander stuff. For the imperial countries what is good for the goose is only good for the goose and no one else. So, if mr x applied for asylum in a British embassy in Ecuador, the Brits would issue a declaration of war to defend the understood rights of the embassy system. But in this case, the Brits, that system, isn't worth the paper it is printed on, even though they have no legal or legitimate interest in the man's process. His crime, or suspected crime, is in another country altogether and has no effect on them at all - it is the localist of local crimes. This is the same country that is going to extra lengths to extradite Gary Mckinnon to the US for an even sillier crime - peeping tom stuff.

This all begs the question: When on sovereign soil that exists more or less as an island in another country, how can one leave if the host ocean that surrounds the place says no? And it if really isn't a sovereign land, why have it all, given the reality of high speed this and that?

Laws, treaties, rules are just suggestions and we are foolish to believe otherwise.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Any updates on them storming the place?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
In a normal world, full of upright decent honest humans. Julian would be lauded to the heavens for his actions. .


That's why even Amnesty International oppose what he has done.


What do they oppose exactly?

Officially, the Amnesty International hasn't opposed anything he has done. Unofficially, a few representatives have on their blogs lamented the fact that he has chosen to seek asylum with Ecuador, which they don't feel is the best representative for human rights agreements, but it's just that.

The Amnesty International has not opposed him seeking asylum in general and has in fact given him awards for publishing documents.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Assange is well known to be working for the House of Rothschild, this is just a stage show



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by drbatstein
Assange is well known to be working for the House of Rothschild, this is just a stage show


I hope they pay him well.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It's no secret that "sovereignty" is a dated concept ripe for the dung pile, according to the big players in this game.

One question is, are those big players ready to light up that part of the board?


That is what drives me crazy about how these things are being handled these days. Sovereignty means everything to the big powers if it's to their benefit. Ask China about the Spratly Islands or anyone who has been through a U.S. Customs checkpoint recently. The basic concept seems alive and well. If someone tried to force their way into one of our Embassies, we'd have a small war on the spot.

Yet.. You're right.... Sovereignty is just a silly outdated concept when it's in the way of what major nations want to do.
So... What happens if an Intelligence Officer gets burned in Syria tomorrow and just makes it into the Swiss or some other neutral Embassy in Damascus? Assad has every right to just storm the Embassy and get the guy for crimes he says happened...right? To ask the U.S. or UK Gov right now, that's apples and oranges, I'm sure.


BTW... This is the latest I saw:

Source - Breaking News - Assange Section
(.I thought it said something on it for source, but I added it for everyone to see and stay informed on more)

edit on 16-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: added source link.... errr...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
This whole thing has made me ashamed to be British. The UK government have shown themselves to be impotent, spineless and morally corrupt. They have turned the UK into a bought and paid for joke of a nation and should hang their heads in shame. Whatever coercion was used I hope the pay off was truly worth it.

Instead of crumbling under financial/political pressure it should be the UK giving asylum for what is clearly a human rights issue. Does anyone really have a serious doubt that Assange will not be sought after by the US should he end up in Sweden and that prosecutors will not be seeking to "see him fry" as they have previously stated? In fact does anyone seriously doubt the whole purpose of trying to get him back to Sweden again is so that the US can attempt to aquire him?

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.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Jargonaut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
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 released.....OR...so the argument can sure be made.

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



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

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 released.....OR...so 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.

I'm sure a break Sharia laws all the time while in the UK, but I've yet to see Saudi Arabia asking for me to be extradited to them.

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)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


I already posted this here www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
In case anyone missed it, here is a portion of the equador press conference, translated to english.
Very interesting stuff.



In the course of these conversations, our country has sought to obtain strict guarantees from the UK government that Assange would face, without hindrance, an open legal process in Sweden. These safeguards include that after facing his legal responsibilities in Sweden, that he would not be extradited to a third country; that is, ensuring that the Specialty Rule [www.publications.parliament.uk...] is not waived. Unfortunately, despite repeated exchanges of messages, the UK at no time showed signs of wanting to reach a political compromise, and merely repeated the content of legal texts.

Assange’s lawyers invited Swedish authorities to take Assange statements in the premises of the Embassy of Ecuador in London. Ecuador officially conveyed to Swedish authorities its willingness to host this interview without interference or impediment to the legal processes followed in Sweden. This measure is absolutely legally possible. Sweden did not accept.

On the other hand, Ecuador raised the possibility that the Swedish government establish guarantees to not subsequently extradite Assange to the United States. Again, the Swedish government rejected any compromise in this regard.

Finally, Ecuador wrote to the U.S. government to officially reveal its position on Assange’s case. Inquiries related to the following: 1. If there is an ongoing legal process or intent to carry out such processes against Julian Assange and/or the founders of the WikiLeaks organization; 2. Should the above be true, then under what kind of legislation, and how and under what conditions would such persons be subject to under maximum penalties; 3. Whether there is an intention to request the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.

The U.S. response has been that it cannot provide information about the Assange case, claiming that it is a bilateral matter between Ecuador and the United Kingdom.


source



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


All I have to say, is that ANY GOVERNMENT can be pissed off at what Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks have done, but its their own damned fault. If they had not gone full bore doing things that they should not have been doing, Government or not, Mr. Assange would not have had anything to share with the rest of the world.

If its that much of an embarrassment for you, then you ought to consider what you did was WRONG and
APOLOGIZE for it and NEVER do it again, else you RISK being found out again and EXPOSED.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
They've also been threatening to invade Iran for a decade.

I don't expect any raids on that embassy anytime soon....like, man walking on Mars soon...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by moniker
 


We really don't.
Ecuador are harboring him against the wishes of Great Britain and its legal system. Regardless of what Ecuador wants to do, the UK is still going to extradite him, they know this. So they then makes things more difficult, even tho regardless of actions Ecuador take, nothing has changed, except Ecuador about to lose diplomatic status with the UK.

They're complaining about the vienna convention of diplomatic relations, how if Britain entered it would violate this.
Two things wrong with this. First, we can just revoke their diplomatic status and all we'd have to do is ensure protection for staff their families and their diplomatic documents. Then we could just walk in and take Assange.
Secondly, I quote:



Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.

Which they've broken.

3. The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incom
patible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention
or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in
force between the sending and the receiving State.


both Article 41.

All the Ecuadorian president has done is stirred # up, just to try make people forget his past of persecution of investigative journalists. He's also actively gone against privately owned media to endorse government run (an censored) media.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xertious
reply to post by moniker
 


We really don't.
Ecuador are harboring him against the wishes of Great Britain and its legal system. Regardless of what Ecuador wants to do, the UK is still going to extradite him, they know this. So they then makes things more difficult, even tho regardless of actions Ecuador take, nothing has changed, except Ecuador about to lose diplomatic status with the UK.

They're complaining about the vienna convention of diplomatic relations, how if Britain entered it would violate this.
Two things wrong with this. First, we can just revoke their diplomatic status and all we'd have to do is ensure protection for staff their families and their diplomatic documents. Then we could just walk in and take Assange.


That might be true, however it would come with severe consequences.

One might also wonder why the UK has at all created a law that so totally clashes with the Vienna convention, of which the UK is also a signatory?

Most of the rest of the world hold the Vienna convention as sacrosanct and couldn't care less about a local law that attempts to make it void.

The UK has already recognised this and backtracked on previous statements, now calling them "unfortunate", after other countries has told the UK that such a move would certainly put the British embassies and their personnel all over the world at jeopardy.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Dont they(ecuador) have a secret underground tunnel?... leading to, for instance, heathrow (jetcenter), otherwise he's f*#cked..
edit on 16-8-2012 by Foppezao because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

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?

No.

Killing him would make him a type of Martyr.


That's the way it USED to be....by all nature of recent behavior and blatant attacks on human rights and constitutional rights while breaking the law themselves to do it..suggests that they want war with a people who are too scared and lethargic to attack back. They want a war with the people and are begging them to make a move. The martyrs of yesterday are the catalysts for mass enslavement today....it's just a matter of time.

Even when the child molester died, M Jackson, and crack head Whitney , their works enjoyed a huge renewed interest.

Gov don't want this from Wiki-leaks, they want him to quietly go away.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join