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.

 

U.S. refuses to recognize diplomatic asylum of WikiLeaks founder

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 

The unbelievable arrogance of my nation's government knows NO BOUNDS. I can't believe how this is developing. How many times have people taken shelter inside a U.S. Embassy? VERY RECENTLY, in fact, we had a Chinese dissident hiding in our Embassy in Beijing. How would we feel if China just "decided" Asylum didn't mean anything to them because they didn't 'feel' like following it?

Gee... Like the State Department says, we aren't even signatories to the treaty (NOW that is worth mentioning..when it's to our benefit) So...Why have we given asylum to others under hostile conditions and in foreign nations from inside our Embassy??

THIS comment beats all:


"We believe this is a bilateral issue between Ecuador and the United Kingdom and that the OAS has no role to play in this matter, " she added.


Hey, I agree! So why the hell is the U.S. even voicing an opinion either way?! It IS between the UK and Ecuador. It's a real A -> B situation we can 'C' our way OUT of.......since we can't even pretend to honor legal precedent and principle when it's not convenient to our King.




posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Expat888
when will people learn... the u.s only recognises international laws / accords when it suits them .... the rest of the time it does what it wants regardless of what the laws are.....


Exactly like what Assange is doing right now?

Assange isn't a Nation, a Super-Power or a society based on the very laws this is flaunting. In a situation where I'd think pointing to bad behavior to justify other bad behavior couldn't be more out of place, well....That particular choice of comparison is....stunning.

Since when can we even joke in passing that misconduct by U.S. Officials is remotely mitigated by the actions of the target the misconduct revolves around?

That's like saying the Feds should be able to shred the rule book while chasing terrorists. Well.. They DO anyway...but that's what we debate daily. How we've become precisely what we started out to fight and Assange isn't worth compromising a single value for...it sure isn't worth crossing the lines this is starting to.




posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaws1975
You keep pointing out how he is avoiding the case in Sweden, first of all he is wanted for questioning, there is no arrest warrant.

Yes there is - source

LONDON — Sweden’s highest court refused on Thursday to allow Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks whistle-blowing organization, to appeal a court order seeking his arrest to face questioning over alleged sex crimes, his lawyer said.

In a telephone interview, Mark Stephens, Mr. Assange’s lawyer in Britain, said the ruling by the Stockholm court exhausted his client’s legal options in trying to overturn the arrest order in Sweden, where the offenses are alleged to have taken place.




Originally posted by jaws1975
Since when has there ever been a case where tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been spent to extradite someone for questioning?
The Swedish legal system has given you your answer. It does not matter what people think about Swedish law, its their law. Just because people dont like it doesnt invalidate it.



Originally posted by jaws1975
Sweden had loads of time to interview and press charges, but even the prosecutors couldn't agree on filing charges.
One prosecutor declined the other one went forward and if I remeber right the PA who went forward is detailed to the sex crimes group.



Originally posted by jaws1975
Everyone except for you can see the writing on the wall, and the US not recognizing his asylum is even more proof of what they plan on doing.
There is no writing on the wall. You have Assange trying to get out of the issue in Sweden by blaming the US for something that has not occured or is even applicable to Assange or the Swedish issue.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


So then your answer is no you dont have any facts to support your claim.

not surprising but whatever works for ya.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Hope they get him, try him for treason. *Lethal injection* For his rapings and murders



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnukeem
Hope they get him, try him for treason. *Lethal injection* For his rapings and murders


Say what? I don't like Assange, but don't like misinformation even more. Can you provide sources where J.A. has raped and murdered anyone??

And treason????? He's not even a us citizen.
edit on 18-8-2012 by acidsweep because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The unbelievable arrogance of my nation's government knows NO BOUNDS. I can't believe how this is developing.
Nothing has developed.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
How many times have people taken shelter inside a U.S. Embassy? VERY RECENTLY, in fact, we had a Chinese dissident hiding in our Embassy in Beijing. How would we feel if China just "decided" Asylum didn't mean anything to them because they didn't 'feel' like following it?
and that dissident spoke to the chinese police inside the US embassy and he eventually left with them. Secondly there is a difference between a dissident and Assange, unless you are suggesting Assange is one?



Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Gee... Like the State Department says, we aren't even signatories to the treaty (NOW that is worth mentioning..when it's to our benefit) So...Why have we given asylum to others under hostile conditions and in foreign nations from inside our Embassy??

THIS comment beats all:


"We believe this is a bilateral issue between Ecuador and the United Kingdom and that the OAS has no role to play in this matter, " she added.


Hey, I agree! So why the hell is the U.S. even voicing an opinion either way?! It IS between the UK and Ecuador. It's a real A -> B situation we can 'C' our way OUT of.......since we can't even pretend to honor legal precedent and principle when it's not convenient to our King.

OAS treaty

Uhm ok.....
So its ok for Assange and his lawyers to constantly invoke / blame the US for something that has not occured but when the US weighs in on the one issue you want them to sit down and be quiet?

There are more OAS countries than just the US who do not recognize that treaty. The United Kingdom nor Sweden recognize it either. Those countries, and the US, use the 1961 protocols.

Assange and his lawyers are the ones who dragged the US into their little soapdrama. Assange and his legal team have no one else to blame but themselves.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Assange isn't a Nation, a Super-Power or a society based on the very laws this is flaunting. In a situation where I'd think pointing to bad behavior to justify other bad behavior couldn't be more out of place, well....That particular choice of comparison is....stunning.

Not really..
Assange and the US are accused of breaking laws.
The US and Wikileaks are both entities.

How is that not a comparison? Secondly how would Assange deal with "crimes" committed by the US if there is no one person in the US to be held responsible for it? As for bad behavior Assange completed that by his actions on obtaining and releasing the documents.

So if the bad behavior comes from the US = bad and if the behavior comes from Assange = good so it must be the US's fault?



Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Since when can we even joke in passing that misconduct by U.S. Officials is remotely mitigated by the actions of the target the misconduct revolves around?

That's like saying the Feds should be able to shred the rule book while chasing terrorists. Well.. They DO anyway...but that's what we debate daily. How we've become precisely what we started out to fight and Assange isn't worth compromising a single value for...it sure isn't worth crossing the lines this is starting to.


I dont think the US has sacrificed anything in this matter. Being its between Assange the UK and Sweden the US is nowhere near that equation.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
People talk about "laws" but what happened to the "laws"
when iraq was illegally invaded and thousands murdrerd?
What annoys me most, are the people who stick up for these
criminals in power.

Its obvious to me that america want assange. And if i was assange,
i would be bricking it too, and try, at all costs to avoid going to sweden.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

I'd started putting stuff together for a reply on how we're walking into a trap with the OAS and how much the world has changed in the last several years...but realized we ought to wait for another thread for that one. Hmm... That's a thought too. Suffice it to say this sure isn't the OAS that voted in our favor on Cuba in 1962.



Really on the topic though comes best with the last thing you said:


I dont think the US has sacrificed anything in this matter. Being its between Assange the UK and Sweden the US is nowhere near that equation.


That was actually true until yesterday. I know by having searched for official U.S. positions on this to post in threads earlier in the week. I couldn't find any. Not a single statement or piece of real material one could call official with a straight face, and so the U.S. really hadn't had a thing to do with it....until State changed that by making the Official statement no one had yet.

Now, it is sticking our nose where it doesn't belong as...unbelievably as I quoted before, the US is telling everyone else to butt out and it's just between the direct parties. Wow... Umm.. Sometimes I wonder if they really read and think about their speeches before delivering them.


I think we're on different sides of the street on this from a fundamental point anyway as I don't feel Assange did anything wrong outside bad judgement he shares with reporters, radio hosts and talking heads all over the world.

His judgement was worse than most....in fact, the Pentagon Papers looked pretty harmless by comparison to the un-redacted package dumps...but he didn't steal the stuff. He didn't give any Oath to protect the material. He was an outlet that reported things like that and it's what brought the source to him and that makes all the difference in the world for me. He also wasn't the only one who wound up with and released material from those packages. Why isn't the U.S. chasing down the Guardian media outlet? Aren't they the ones who actually had a database online with some of it for awhile? One of them did....

The US could give assurances that....as you suggest.....we really have/want nothing to do with this and WILL NOT seek extradition or attempt to rendition Assange....but that's been outright refused. No assurances given... Well, I suppose we're at least not making promises we intend to break. That's something to be said.


(and we can all just play like this B.S. "rape" garbage is what this is really all about....but can any of us keep a straight face while saying that? lol)



edit on 18-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: Spacing



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Would it be appropriate for Russia and China to tell the UK and US to take a p##$ and if they don't give free passage they will mount an operation to rescue him. I know both are getting tired of the US heavy hand in the world. Would the UK or US go to war just to get him.

Would the UN interfere. A lot of people there hate the US.

I would hope Assuage has something really damning and embarrassing left to spring on Obama and company. It would be interesting if the insurance file contained Swiss bank, account numbers, names and balances for last thirty years for both in country and world wide operations for everyone over one million dollars US.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Refuse it all you want. Fact is, he's got asylum.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Well ABC is saying his talking to the media at 11pm AEST tonight, so we'll find out whats happening in 14 hours time.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'd started putting stuff together for a reply on how we're walking into a trap with the OAS and how ...

The OAS is open to nations in South, Central , North America which means it doesnt apply to nations outside that zone, like Europe. It would be an interestign debate topic though. It would also be interesting to compare the 1954 OAS document Ecquador is uses and compare it to the 1961 diplo protocols that all but a few countries use.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Really on the topic though comes best with the last thing you said:

That was actually true until yesterday. I ..snipped for room.

Assange is the one who dragged the US into this mess, not the US. He has been accusing the US for a few years now so for the US to state they dont recognize the status is nothing but stating their position. He has based his entire position / defense on a hypothetical and not facts.

If we read through the legal mumbo jumbo (Diplom / Asylum) we will find there are provisions that are required to be met in order for their request to be valid and legal. When a country violates the protocol and grants the status, it does not have to be recognized as valid by other countries.

I snipped the larger portion as I think we are having the same conversation in 2 threads, same topic different element lol.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The US could give assurances that....as you suggest.....we really have/want nothing to do with this and WILL NOT seek extradition or attempt to rendition Assange....but that's been outright refused. No assurances given... Well, I suppose we're at least not making promises we intend to break. That's something to be said.

Let me ask -
Why should the US give an assurance they wont prosecute when US laws were broken? What if we make that agreement and 4 months later we discover Assange was involved up to his eyeballs?


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
(and we can all just play like this B.S. "rape" garbage is what this is really all about....but can any of us keep a straight face while saying that? lol)


Lol again just because we dont agree with a countries laws does not mean its invalid. Secondly we dont know if the charges are true or not since Asange has decided to hinder the investigation.

The push to get the US to state they will not seek extradition is a closely veiled / carefully worded request in my opinion. He is not asking for an assurance regarding extradition, he is asking for immunity from prosecution.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
Would it be appropriate for Russia and China to tell the UK and US to take a p##$ and if they don't give free passage they will mount an operation to rescue him. I know both are getting tired of the US heavy hand in the world. Would the UK or US go to war just to get him.


You are comparing apples to duck billed platypuses.

The Brits are not trying to rescue him they are attempting to take him into custody.
The Brits are not going to storm the embassy (which that conversation got taken way out of context) either. What they did say is they can take the Ecquadorian embassy to court in order to have it stripped of its diplomatic status. If that occurs then the Brits are not violating Ecquadors sovereignty.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Assange is the one who dragged the US into this mess, not the US. He has been accusing the US for a few years now so for the US to state they dont recognize the status is nothing but stating their position. He has based his entire position / defense on a hypothetical and not facts.


Many seem to be suggesting, and in fairness this is general, that this whole situation isn't really about the U.S. wanting Assange, which is silly to say. That's what all of this is ultimately about. The British want rid of him..and I'm sure they won't care or want to care what happens to him the moment he's off their soil. Sweden likely doesn't actually want him any more than anyone else while we're hunting.


Let me ask -
Why should the US give an assurance they wont prosecute when US laws were broken? What if we make that agreement and 4 months later we discover Assange was involved up to his eyeballs?


Well, up to his eyeballs in what? I agree that he did break U.S. Laws. Treason isn't among them...he's not a citizen and reading case precedent does seem to establish that as a necessary element...but he did violate laws. We can stand on textbook thinking and say all law breakers must be punished and if we let one exception go then where does it stop, or something......or be realistic and just ask what is so important that THIS one be chased to the ends of the Earth?

THIS one crapped all over Hillary Clinton, personally...as it happens in the subject of so many cables. He crapped all over Obama and Bush and a number of Military commanders who've already been burned or lightly crisped from things that came from Wikileaks. What *ELSE*, outside personal grudges and stomped feelings....make this one so critical to go through so much for? Obama COULD be the bigger guy and show some discretion for a change. It might even get him a vote or two.....

The fact is.... Manning did it. We DO have HIM. Oh...do we have him good too...
Assange was just the 'worst' of the Media Manning ran the packages to for how it was released.


Lol again just because we dont agree with a countries laws does not mean its invalid. Secondly we dont know if the charges are true or not since Asange has decided to hinder the investigation.


Oh this is just outrageous to even use the word rape. The fact it's the word used in Swedish law is the only reason I don't use another term more fitting to the "crime" he hasn't even been charged with yet. Dishonesty in bed would be more accurate.

When the "victim" herself is directly quoted as saying the time together was 100% consensual, enjoyable and freely joined in, rape just leaves my American mind as being a word to even use.....period. He apparently wasn't as honest as she'd have appreciated....and quite literally in the words of the "accuser", that really is all this crap is about..................and getting Assange into the jackpot for a yank to the United States, of course.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
On one hand the U.S. government condems the two year prison sentence of Pussy Riot in Russia citing it as a violation of free speech and on the other hand they imprison Bradley Manning and persecute Julian Assange for whistleblowing, which is an exercise in free speech as well....what hypocracy! Now the U.S. govenment is not going to honor diplomatic law? Not smart. Countries around the world, probably starting in latin America will start the expulsion of U.S & U.K. diplomats and deservedly so.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I stand corrected, there is an arrest warrant, there just hasn't been any charges filed. I wonder if that's because of the below statement?


Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné declared, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."


Source



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Follow these links and you will get a summary of what has really happened in Sweden:

rixstep.com...

Police protocols in English

radsoft.net...

Summary in English
edit on 2012-8-18 by Torre because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


So then your answer is no you dont have any facts to support your claim.

not surprising but whatever works for ya.



lol, what you mean is that i refuse to play straight man in your comedy skit
considering your own baseless accusation, and all the legal casuistry
you're pulling...

lets just say oral roberts couldn't give it legs

still waiting for proof of your claims, btw

we all know the score here
one constantly metamorposing law for the psychopathic elite based only on its whims,
and its ginormous murder machine to back up
[mao, who claimed political power comes from the barrel of a gun, would be proud]

the other law for the masses etched in stone, in a language that bears only a superficial similarity
to the language spoken in its jurisdiction. requiring a priest of the law, to interpret it




i



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join