| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
While my support for wikileaks is unending, i think it ought to and would survive assange's loss. The whole point of this free information movement is to empower the masses, so losing a figurehead should be no big deal. While I'm sure ecuador is pissed by britain trying to act like theyre still a superpower, they probably do not care enough to shield assange compared to how much they will be attracted by whatever under the table bribes the US and others are offering for cooperation. | ||
|
leveller
Sweden1840 Posts
| ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
| ||
|
DMKraft
476 Posts
On August 16 2012 08:45 DidYuhim wrote: Don't be naive. GB just want the guy in jail. Don't assume people are naive for not going sharing your belief/conspiracy theory. He may be guilty or or he be innocent. That is for courts to decide. | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 07:50 EtherealDeath wrote: So Assange has been at the Ecuadoran embassy in London now since June 19, while pending a decision from the Ecuadorean government on whether or not to grant him immunity. To that regard, interesting news from Reuters an hour ago. Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-idUSBRE87E16N20120815 It's not normal to threaten to raid an embassy over an asylum issue is it? Probably not, but nothing is stopping the UK from doing it. Countries grant extraterritorial status to certain places as embassies to other countries and sometimes international organizations, but are free to revoke them at any time. Equador certainly can't project military power out to the UK and invade them in retaliation, and I doubt any great power is going to do it for them. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 16 2012 13:35 itsjustatank wrote: Probably not, but nothing is stopping the UK from doing it. Countries grant extraterritorial status to certain places as embassies to other countries and sometimes international organizations, but are free to revoke them at any time. No doubt, yet something tells me that threatening to raid an embassy is somewhere on the top ten of a "how to piss off an ally" list. It's simply bizarre that such a threat would be made. Well, maybe not top ten. Probably top twenty, though. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9179 Posts
| ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On August 16 2012 13:59 itsjustatank wrote: It is pretty ballsy for the UK to be doing this though, with their days of economic and military hegemony long behind them; they actually can be effectively counter-balanced in a backlash on the part of other countries. The most anyone would react would be finger wagging. It's highly, highly unlikely any countries of any importance would actively attempt to sever diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom, given the fact that it still remains one of the most powerful nations in the world. Declined greatly sure, both in absolute and relative terms, but still a potent force on the world stage. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 14:04 Elegy wrote: The most anyone would react would be finger wagging. It's highly, highly unlikely any countries of any importance would actively attempt to sever diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom, given the fact that it still remains one of the most powerful nations in the world. Declined greatly sure, both in absolute and relative terms, but still a potent force on the world stage. I tend to agree with your opinion here, but I can see a perfect storm of backlash that would leave the UK in a sorry shape because of how they've allowed their global position and primacy to decline so severely over the past decades. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
| ||
|
FataLe
New Zealand4560 Posts
On August 16 2012 14:21 Zahir wrote: They are screwed in a way because the us is likely putting pressure on them to acquire assange. Classic Rock and a hard place. So like, Pink Floyd; The Wall? | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On August 16 2012 14:21 Zahir wrote: They are screwed in a way because the us is likely putting pressure on them to acquire assange. Classic Rock and a hard place. The UK has a legal right to suspend diplomatic immunity. If the other option is a rock, I don't think there's really a hard place. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
It would be pretty transparent that the only reason they are bothering is caving to US pressure due to assange being a central figure to wikileaks, whose "crimes" of information spreading many of our elites detest. All the polls I've seen on wikileaks have been conflicted, but the harder a government tries to crack down on something like this, the more support it gets, IMO. Fatale: good one lol. Epic album/band btw. | ||
|
Oaky
United States95 Posts
| ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On August 16 2012 14:18 itsjustatank wrote: I tend to agree with your opinion here, but I can see a perfect storm of backlash that would leave the UK in a sorry shape because of how they've allowed their global position and primacy to decline so severely over the past decades. Hmmm it's not so much the British allowed themselves to decline, it's that the rest of the world...caught up. British primacy since ~1814 was the result of their unique circumstances allowing them to industrialize first and a host of other benefits/good decisions. American supremacy is much the same- there wasn't much left of the industrialized world post-WW2. When people speak of American "decline", it's more that American power is waning in relative consideration to the rest of the world, which has been regaining its lost strength and capability over the past decades, more than any massive or largely significant absolute decline in American might. At the most, I could see a handful of irrelevant countries on the world stage protesting by closing British embassies and maybe, maybe even a UN resolution proposed condemning the breach of diplomatic immunity, etc. My guess is that the Brits would revoke the extraterritoriality of the embassy in question, thereby giving them pseudo-legal power to raid the embassy. However, if a country can instantly revoke embassy status to pursue domestic legal objectives, it rather defeats the purpose of sovereign embassies in the first place. Either way, I doubt the Brits would do it; if they did, expect the diplomatic faux pas to matter to only those whom already have a propensity to dislike British (Or "western") interests, and we all know who those countries are. As for the US pressuring the Brits to do this to get Assange...how do they do that, exactly? What practical, realistic methods exist to effectively pressure the British to do what "we" want? Withhold security information? Anything economic is out of the question. Not help the British abroad? Well, the US didn't help during the Falklands...maybe not provide the newest weapon systems or something silly? I question the practical application of saying the US can effectively pressure such a close ally, at least when we assume that pressure will have negative ramifications if the US doesn't get what it wants. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On August 16 2012 15:18 Elegy wrote: As for the US pressuring the Brits to do this to get Assange...how do they do that, exactly? What practical, realistic methods exist to effectively pressure the British to do what "we" want? Withhold security information? Anything economic is out of the question. Not help the British abroad? Well, the US didn't help during the Falklands...maybe not provide the newest weapon systems or something silly? I question the practical application of saying the US can effectively pressure such a close ally, at least when we assume that pressure will have negative ramifications if the US doesn't get what it wants. There's quite a few ways the most powerful nation on the planet can pressure a smaller country, be it through backing on international agreements to information sharing. Though I doubt anyone on TL knows the specifics of what Congress could think up and what technical specifications international law can be contorted to, I didn't think this was even a question. Let me put it this way; if we could get them to help us occupy Iraq and facilitate black flights, we could easily get them to pressure one man we don't like. A man they are probably, at best, neutral towards in the first place. On August 16 2012 15:18 Elegy wrote: Either way, I doubt the Brits would do it; if they did, expect the diplomatic faux pas to matter to only those whom already have a propensity to dislike British (Or "western") interests, and we all know who those countries are. Allies and enemies are never constants, it's always a sliding scale. Pissing off allies can cool favorable relations, or embolden old enemies. I'm not saying that having police forces storm the embassy will necessarily cause this effect. But it's something to consider. | ||
|
nihoh
Australia978 Posts
| ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
http://www.economist.com/node/7218678 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122894/U-S-threatens-Britain-6bn-trade-sanctions-legal-battle-aircraft-subsidies-comes-head.html?ITO=1490 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/2085184/US-threatens-Britain-with-legal-action-over-airline-taxes.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/5843497/Failure-to-fund-Armed-Forces-threatens-Britains-special-relationship-with-US.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333213/WikiLeaks-revelations-expose-corruption-allies-U-S-warns-Britain.html The us has a whole range of diplomatic and economic moves used to pressure it's allies, from legal slapfights to withdrawing military and financial aid to sanctions to dissolving military and intelligence cooperation, all the way up threatening to abandon some or all of it's alliance commitments, in Britains case the "special relationship". It wouldn't go that far over assange, but you can be sure America is using both carrot and stick to get its allies to do what it wants. | ||
|
accela
Greece314 Posts
On August 16 2012 13:21 Zahir wrote: Ah, my mistake. In that case, the charges sound a bit trumped up, do they not? But going through the standard judicial process is the best way to prove his innocence, Sweden is a very rational county from what I hear. He is not charged with something, officially they want to prosecute him for questioning but that's not something that necessarily must be done in Sweden, Assange's side has repeatedly asked to question him through phone, video call or in person but have been denied by swedish authorities. In fact he even asked to question him while he was still in Sweden but that also didn't happen. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On August 16 2012 18:02 accela wrote: He is not charged with something, officially they want to prosecute him for questioning but that's not something that necessarily must be done in Sweden, Assange's side has repeatedly asked to question him through phone, video call or in person but have been denied by swedish authorities. In fact he even asked to question him while he was still in Sweden but that also didn't happen. To be honest, even the charges themselves are quite silly in comparison to the very high stakes of Assange's possible detention. It is almost certain that this is merely a way to get him in the US legal system. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Clem vs SHIN
herO vs SHIN
Serral vs Solar
Clem vs SHIN
Reynor vs TBD
PiGStarcraft471
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
BSL Open Qualifier
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
