Covert plan at Ecuadorian Embassy strengthened after removing dedicated guards (Assange)

a reply to: grainofsand

A claim that assange tries to use even though its false. He has also tried to argue he would face the death penalty (which is not an available punishment), that he would be charged with treason (which he cant because he is not a US citizen), that he would be sent to Gitmo (which he cant because he doesn't qualify for it).

He has used all those lies in an effort to avoid going to Sweden.

Ironic that a person who wants to hold government accountable refuses to comply with it himself.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Lol, you might trust the US government, but Assange appears to be safe enough in the Ecuador embassy.
I'd do the same.

What, you don't think Ecuador has good reason to offer him sanctuary in central London.
Perhaps you should phone Cameron if you have such strong intel.

a reply to: grainofsand

i think Ecuador granted asylum because at the time their leader hated the US. If Assange is going to be a coward then why go into the business of stealing information and releasing it while gaining financial profit from it?

Again its Ironic he does one of the very thing he accuses governments of doing.

Facing charges with the possibility of being found guilty in Sweden or the US if the US files charges and being sent to prison OR remain locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

i think either way he is a prisoner. I also think he is going to try and escape and I will be surprised if he succeeds.

a reply to: Xcathdra

We shall see...I guess

a reply to: Xcathdra

These are all issues that could easily be avoided if the US or Sweden agreed to not extradite him over the Wikileaks issue once in custody. Something neither nation has agreed to do. At a minimum you would think Sweden would agree to it, it has nothing to do with them and it would remove any excuse Ecuador had in sheltering him which means they could put a potential criminal on trial to determine guilt.

a reply to: Aazadan

The US cant agree to non extradition when there are no charges filed if that makes sense. It would be along the same lines of demanding Russia give an assurance they wont prosecute the head of ISIS before any legalities have actually been set in motion.

It comes back to that whole standing issue. Something cannot be challenged by one party until it happens and until it happens the other party cant agree to terms.


Speaking for Sweden and considering their legal system is west based they cant agree to not extradite for a charge that is non existent.


Also just because there is an extradition agreement does not mean the country in question is required to extradite. As an example we can look at Gary McKinnon. A foreign national who hacked into classified US government computer systems from the UK.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan
a reply to: crazyewok

His citizenship is irrelevant. He assisted Manning in retrieving classified information by providing the encryption software in order to obtain the information. He then published that information. Information that did not belong to him.

There are plenty of examples of citizens of one country using the internet to violate laws in another country and we have seen those individuals charged and extradited.

Regardless I still think its bull# and wrong.

You may be shilling mcshillington and blindly support US policy 100% but guess what? others dont !



I hope Gary Mckinon gulls at you like the middle finger to US extradition treatys he is and I hope Assange escapes to add salt to that wound.

originally posted by: crazyewok
I hope Gary Mckinon gulls at you like the middle finger to US extradition treatys he is and I hope Assange escapes to add salt to that wound.

My sentiments exactly
Assange has quite a while to break the record on hiding in a foreign embassy though, turns out a US embassy protected a guy for 15 years a few decades ago:
www.bbc.co.uk...

Possibly the longest case ever of a dissident taking sanctuary in an embassy was that of the Hungarian Catholic Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty who spent 15 years under the protection of the US embassy in Budapest, from 1956 to 1971.

...he is certainly the longest in central London sticking the finger to those who would wish him extradited to the US, lol.

a reply to: crazyewok

So when it is something you don't like and something you don't agree with you accuse me of being a shill? I pointed out McKinnon to drive home the point that just because extradition treaties are in place it does not automatically guarantee an extradition request would be honored. It would be no different than a European country refusing to honor an extradition warrant from the US if the death penalty is in play.

Assange is a tool who is doing the very thing he accuses governments of doing all the while living off the donations of those people who are to gullible enough to be taken it by him. That should have been obvious when he threatened to sue a UK newspaper who obtained all the files Assange was selling claiming he would be financially harmed if they released the info.

How about maybe learning something before running off at the mouth and substituting law with your opinion? Excuse me for being educated.

a reply to: grainofsand

and, based on your source from the BBC, Ecuador had no grounds to grant asylum because Assange was not in any danger of being killed or seriously injured. The British courts ruled as much when they denied his request to have his transfer squashed.

As for the longest case you need to look at the country involved, the guys position as a member of a religious order, and how the Soviet Union went after those individuals when the occupied E. Europe.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Kind of tough luck really, Ecuador are acting lawfully by granting him asylum.
Oh, and trusting the courts in a high level case such as Assange is a bit naive in my opinion. There are enough shady deals done over the years for me to completely understand why he doesn't wish to risk an extradition request as soon as he sets foot in the UK or Sweden.

Your speculation and opinion is interesting of course, but you know nothing more or less about what is going on behind the scenes than I do.

...oh, and I of course see completely different back stories between Assange and the guy who spent 15 years in a US embassy, I was simply sharing it for interesting information purposes.

a reply to: grainofsand

Yes and no on Ecuador and lawful acts. Because its an embassy it cant be entered, regardless if they are in compliance with international law or not. What they have done and I doubt the UK will go down this road would be to reprimand Ecuador for using its embassy in a manner that is not supported by the consular relations act. Asylum is based on death or serious physical harm and Assange does not face either - as the courts in the UK ruled.

The stories behind Assange and the Cardinal aren't even comparable.


József Mindszenty - Prince Primate, Archbishop of Esztergom, cardinal, and leader of the Catholic Church in Hungary from 2 October 1945 to 18 December 1973

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Assange is a tool who is doing the very thing he accuses governments

Yes he is a tool. I think he was a irresponsible wanker.

But to me that doesn't make him responsible for breaking the law of a country who soil he was never on!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
How about maybe learning something before running off at the mouth and substituting law with your opinion? Excuse me for being educated.

No I do recognize that for you and the US governments arrogant opinion he "broke" US "law".

I just dont agree with the idea you can break the law of a country you not in!

What next the US DEA going into the Netherlands to bust coffee houses?


Just because the law is in you books doesn't mean I agree with the principle of it.
Saudi Arabia have "laws" but doesn't mean I agree with stoning women to death for adultery.

originally posted by: crazyewok

Yes he is a tool. I think he was a irresponsible wanker.

But to me that doesn't make him responsible for breaking the law of a country who soil he was never on!

An irrelevant point that has no bearing on the crime and the possible charges behind it.

originally posted by: crazyewok
No I do recognize that for you and the US governments arrogant opinion he "broke" US "law".

I just dont agree with the idea you can break the law of a country you not in!

What next the US DEA going into the Netherlands to bust coffee houses?

of course not... and, again since I think you are intentionally ignoring it, Assange nor Manning were in the United states when this occurred. Assange assisted Manning in getting the classified information by providing him with a means to encrypt the info in such a manner it was undetectable to the measure in place to prevent classified information from leaving while manning was deployed to the ME.

Secondly its not arrogance. Its based on an illegal action Assange took in order to acquire information that was not his.

Third no charges have been filed against him so I'm not sure why you are so intent on the arrogance argument about the US and the laws in question. I would think it would be more arrogant to go after an entity and accuse them of something they never did.

The only arrogant person I am seeing is Assange who feels everyone should be held to the same standard unless of course its Assange himself. In that case you just make stuff up in order to avoid responsibility in a potential rape case.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Just because the law is in you books doesn't mean I agree with the principle of it.
Saudi Arabia have "laws" but doesn't mean I agree with stoning women to death for adultery.

Just because its on the books and my background allows me to understand how it works and why doesn't make me a shill.

next time make your argument in that fashion instead of launching a personal attack and accusing me of being a Shill simply because you don't like the law and have no way to counter the argument.

Is it you don't agree with a crime from a country you were never in or is it because you agree with what Assange did and is currently doing?

A Question for you
Sweden has a valid arrest and extradition warrant. Setting aside US laws why is it ok for him to ignore the laws of Sweden, which is where he was at when he broke those laws?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The stories behind Assange and the Cardinal aren't even comparable.[/url]

Who said they were comparable? You trying to nit pick here or something?
I posted this:

...oh, and I of course see completely different back stories between Assange and the guy who spent 15 years in a US embassy, I was simply sharing it for interesting information purposes.

Which bit of that do you want to argue?
Interesting information purposes, about people holed up for long periods in embassies.

Just because you are bleating that the US can do nothing about Assange, doesn't mean you have a clue about what the back story in higher places is. You have nothing more than I do, opinion, but I'm not presenting mine as fact.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
and, based on your source from the BBC, Ecuador had no grounds to grant asylum because Assange was not in any danger of being killed or seriously injured. The British courts ruled as much when they denied his request to have his transfer squashed.

Sweden's extradition history with the US and the fact that high level government officials were claiming that Assange should be apprehended and executed provided enough reasonable doubt that it was a potential outcome.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Manning was a US citizen who signed a NDA and was part of the US military.

He did as far as I am concerned break the law.

Is it you don't agree with a crime from a country you were never in or is it because you agree with what Assange did and is currently doing?

I thought I already made that clear.
I think Assange is a irresponsible tool.

Its the principle of the matter of country's sovereignty and your freedom not being at the whim of US foreign policy.
I for example am in the UK, I am subject in my opinion to UK laws and ONLY UK laws.

IF he does end up in Sweden and stands trial for the rap and only the rape then fair enough. Long as he stays in a Swedish prison.

a reply to: grainofsand

Because the situation Assange got himself into does not come remotely close to the cardinal who had already been arrested and imprisoned for 8 years for opposing Fascists and communism. He was freed during an uprising and had he been caught he would most likely have been executed. He requested and received political asylum based on a valid reading of embassy's and their purpose.

Just because Ecuador granted him Asylum doesn't mean its lawful. All it means is the local police cant enter the embassy to arrest him because its an embassy.

My opinion is based on law and my experience and training, which includes dealing with diplomats and how that process works.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
A Question for you
Sweden has a valid arrest and extradition warrant. Setting aside US laws why is it ok for him to ignore the laws of Sweden, which is where he was at when he broke those laws?

It's not. He has agreed to submit to any questions and even a trial in Sweden, as part of his asylum Ecuador is on board with that too, but they're not going to do it if there's a possibility they'll extradite him to the US and that possibility is very real.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Manning was a US citizen who signed a NDA and was part of the US military.

He did as far as I am concerned break the law.

He did break the law by accessing classified information. He broke the law when he received a program that helped him bypass the security measures. He violated the law when he passed that classified information on to another party who is not allowed to have it.

Yes manning broke the law... As did Assange when he aided him in retrieving and sending the classified material and he broke the law when he released the information.

Something I notice you are ignoring.

Is it you don't agree with a crime from a country you were never in or is it because you agree with what Assange did and is currently doing?

I thought I already made that clear.
I think Assange is a irresponsible tool.

Its the principle of the matter of country's sovereignty and your freedom not being at the whim of US foreign policy.
I for example am in the UK, I am subject in my opinion to UK laws and ONLY UK laws.

IF he does end up in Sweden and stands trial for the rap and only the rape then fair enough. Long as he stays in a Swedish prison.



yup and Gary McKinnon was also in the UK when he used an electronic medium to hack his way into US government computers to steal classified information. The same thing Assange did when he used the internet to get the information in question from a US source.

McKinnon was not extradited because of his disability status.


I also notice you completely ignore my question so I will ask it again -
Assange violated Swedish law while he was in Sweden. Why are his actions acceptable, refusing to answer the charges and then hiding in an embassy like a whiny little b**ch, acceptable to you?

You argued after all about being in a country and violating that countries laws, which Assange did.