|
On August 16 2012 23:14 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:00 Klive5ive wrote:
It's obvious America is applying a lot of political pressure on the UK ...
What makes you think the US is applying any pressure? Sweden wants to prosecute Assange for alleged sex crimes and the UK wants to extradite him. These aren't political decisions, they're just standard steps that any nation would take. Ecuador is getting involved to try to piss off the Americans -- but do the Americans even care about Assange anymore? Somehow I think Barack Obama has other things on his mind...
Yeah, I love how people yell for freedom of speech when this have nothing to do with that.
Assange is under suspicion for raping someone in Sweden and have to stand trail, as simple as that.
Sweden ain't US, its not a corrupt nation where people are falsely convicted of something and Sweden like Denmark won't extra-dict someone who could face death punishment.
|
On August 16 2012 23:16 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:14 fleeze wrote:On August 16 2012 23:09 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 23:04 fleeze wrote:On August 16 2012 22:51 hugman wrote:On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? No one can enforce international law so of course it will be broken when leaders see it fit to do so. international law gets enforced by the countries that signed the treaty... if one member breaks the law the other members will sanction them. there are some vague laws that countries interpret differently but what you say is just plain wrong. if a country doesn't care about an international law it just doesn't sign the treaty... otherwise those laws wouldn't even exist, because they are useless. What are sanctions? Are those the things we place on Syria to get them to stop massacring civilians every week or so? The only sanction that can enforce international law is military use of force. what a fucking stupid example. but expected as i saw your name. the topic is about embassys and the law protecting them. so how about you come up with a fitting one? if britain doesn't respect embassy status, do you think other countries will accept theirs? As it stands the UK can de facto and de jure do whatever they want to the Ecuadorean diplomatic mission.
no? they will lose respect all over the world and nobody will care about UK diplomatic missions then. especially countries that aren't friends with them.
edit:
On August 16 2012 23:19 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:14 ziggurat wrote:On August 16 2012 23:00 Klive5ive wrote:
It's obvious America is applying a lot of political pressure on the UK ...
What makes you think the US is applying any pressure? Sweden wants to prosecute Assange for alleged sex crimes and the UK wants to extradite him. These aren't political decisions, they're just standard steps that any nation would take. Ecuador is getting involved to try to piss off the Americans -- but do the Americans even care about Assange anymore? Somehow I think Barack Obama has other things on his mind... Yeah, I love how people yell for freedom of speech when this have nothing to do with that. Assange is under suspicion for raping someone in Sweden and have to stand trail, as simple as that. Sweden ain't US, its not a corrupt nation where people are falsely convicted of something and Sweden like Denmark won't extra-dict someone who could face death punishment.
stop trolling and start informing before spreading lies? he isn't even accused so how does he have to stand trial? they want to question him on the subject. that's a big difference.
|
Anyone that thinks that the US government has nothing to do woth this is extremely naive.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 23:20 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:16 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 23:14 fleeze wrote:On August 16 2012 23:09 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 23:04 fleeze wrote:On August 16 2012 22:51 hugman wrote:On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? No one can enforce international law so of course it will be broken when leaders see it fit to do so. international law gets enforced by the countries that signed the treaty... if one member breaks the law the other members will sanction them. there are some vague laws that countries interpret differently but what you say is just plain wrong. if a country doesn't care about an international law it just doesn't sign the treaty... otherwise those laws wouldn't even exist, because they are useless. What are sanctions? Are those the things we place on Syria to get them to stop massacring civilians every week or so? The only sanction that can enforce international law is military use of force. what a fucking stupid example. but expected as i saw your name. the topic is about embassys and the law protecting them. so how about you come up with a fitting one? if britain doesn't respect embassy status, do you think other countries will accept theirs? As it stands the UK can de facto and de jure do whatever they want to the Ecuadorean diplomatic mission. no? they will lose respect all over the world and nobody will care about UK diplomatic missions then. especially countries that aren't friends with them.
If the impact to their decision is that countries who already aren't friends with them decide to break off relations, that's not that bad at all. The UK already has diminished hard and soft power capabilities, I expect they are willing to spend a little more of that if they are openly making threats like this.
|
On August 16 2012 22:51 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? No one can enforce international law so of course it will be broken when leaders see it fit to do so.
Except "fit to do so" varies greatly. The US often pisses on agreements and rights of other nations. Why? Because 1. They can and because of 2. Their attitude. If they (populace -> politicians in the US) were of the opinion that this was the wrong thing to do, even if it would benefit them, then it wouldn't happen. I personally believe that the US, and other countries from time to time (For example Canada and the Kyoto agreement) are out of line. The only way to fix this is to create a mentality that we are fundamentally all the same, and build bridges of understanding between nations. It's a very large project but at least we've been going in the right general direction since WW2.
|
Assange is a hero of those who believe in holding world governments accountable and an enemy of those who want to keep the general public's heads collectively buried in the sand. Bravo Ecuador. Imagine that, we now live in a world where the truth makes you a terrorist and lies are for "protecting our country", the US government in particular should be proud of the level of brainwashing and indoctrination they have achieved ever since 9/11.
|
Assange is dangerous and must be eliminated. I fully back and support all nations who see his actions as a threat to world security and prosperity.
An enemy threat level is evaluated on 3 things.
Will
Capability
Range
Assange has all 3 checked off. He needs to be incapacitated (Jailed/Killed) from further assaults against world security.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 23:22 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:51 hugman wrote:On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? No one can enforce international law so of course it will be broken when leaders see it fit to do so. Except "fit to do so" varies greatly. The US often pisses on agreements and rights of other nations. Why? Because 1. They can and because of 2. Their attitude. If they (populace -> politicians in the US) were of the opinion that this was the wrong thing to do, even if it would benefit them, then it wouldn't happen. I personally believe that the US, and other countries from time to time (For example Canada and the Kyoto agreement) are out of line. The only way to fix this is to create a mentality that we are fundamentally all the same, and build bridges of understanding between nations. It's a very large project but at least we've been going in the right general direction since WW2.
Bridges of understanding between nations won't be enough to change how states act in self-interest within the current order. It will take something approximating world government for any real change to take place; and there are a number of substantial barriers preventing that from ever happening.
|
On December 07 2010 20:27 stenole wrote:
I don't think there is anything problematic about a wanted person in Sweden getting arrested in the UK. I have a lot of confidence in the Swedish and British justice systems.
this, all day.
|
On August 16 2012 23:24 SayGen wrote:
Assange is dangerous and must be eliminated. I fully back and support all nations who see his actions as a threat to world security and prosperity.
An enemy threat level is evaluated on 3 things.
Will
Capability
Range
Assange has all 3 checked off. He needs to be incapacitated (Jailed/Killed) from further assaults against world security.
rofl, can't believe the bullshit i just read.
he just reveals what others where doing, but HE is accountable? flawed logic somehow.
same as bradley manning. instead of honoring him and getting his bosses to court they just blame the scapegoat that reveals their own wrongdoings.
|
On August 16 2012 23:19 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:14 ziggurat wrote:On August 16 2012 23:00 Klive5ive wrote:
It's obvious America is applying a lot of political pressure on the UK ...
What makes you think the US is applying any pressure? Sweden wants to prosecute Assange for alleged sex crimes and the UK wants to extradite him. These aren't political decisions, they're just standard steps that any nation would take. Ecuador is getting involved to try to piss off the Americans -- but do the Americans even care about Assange anymore? Somehow I think Barack Obama has other things on his mind... Yeah, I love how people yell for freedom of speech when this have nothing to do with that. Assange is under suspicion for raping someone in Sweden and have to stand trail, as simple as that. Sweden ain't US, its not a corrupt nation where people are falsely convicted of something and Sweden like Denmark won't extra-dict someone who could face death punishment.
On August 16 2012 23:26 drumsetjunky wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 20:27 stenole wrote:
I don't think there is anything problematic about a wanted person in Sweden getting arrested in the UK. I have a lot of confidence in the Swedish and British justice systems. this, all day.
Assange accepted to be interrogated by the Swedish police in Sweden if he was given guarantees not to be sent to the US afterwards. Sweden said no.
Assange accepted to be interrogated in the UK by the Swedish police. Swedish police said no. But Swedish police already did interrogation on foreign soil for Olof Palme's murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Olof_Palme).
Also the fact that these "sex by surprise" accusations appeared after the release of the American diplomatic cables is VERY suspicious to me.
|
The funny part about all this is that the case against him is pretty weak.
That being said he's accused of a serious crime and can't expect to just run to another country without first being questioned and hope the Swedish justice system forgets about him.
He turned this into a circus and as a result I've lost a ton of respect for him.
|
On August 16 2012 23:24 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:22 HellRoxYa wrote:On August 16 2012 22:51 hugman wrote:On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? No one can enforce international law so of course it will be broken when leaders see it fit to do so. Except "fit to do so" varies greatly. The US often pisses on agreements and rights of other nations. Why? Because 1. They can and because of 2. Their attitude. If they (populace -> politicians in the US) were of the opinion that this was the wrong thing to do, even if it would benefit them, then it wouldn't happen. I personally believe that the US, and other countries from time to time (For example Canada and the Kyoto agreement) are out of line. The only way to fix this is to create a mentality that we are fundamentally all the same, and build bridges of understanding between nations. It's a very large project but at least we've been going in the right general direction since WW2. Bridges of understanding between nations won't be enough to change how states act in self-interest within the current order. It will take something approximating world government for any real change to take place; and there are a number of substantial barriers preventing that from ever happening.
Yes, it will, eventually. A world government will only happen after what I speak of, if ever. In any case borders have become more porous all over the world. While a realistic worldview is still very applicable to a few nations (the US being one of them) it isn't when it comes to, say, my own. So here's the point: If the US went and said "Well this bullshit we're doing isn't working" then suddenly they'd stop acting only in their selfinterest, and more importantly, they'd act differently even when thinking they are acting in their own selfinterest.
|
![[image loading]](http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNAIOPeKbIPENJXRWuDRPVL45HfsovVFHaeyR8w_A6HubT6isAi2maQK7l)
the only country with enough balls to fight america !
|
On August 16 2012 23:24 SayGen wrote:
Assange is dangerous and must be eliminated. I fully back and support all nations who see his actions as a threat to world security and prosperity.
An enemy threat level is evaluated on 3 things.
Will
Capability
Range
Assange has all 3 checked off. He needs to be incapacitated (Jailed/Killed) from further assaults against world security.
You have a very hard stance on his crime in Sweden, which is "condom broke during the act".
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 23:28 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:24 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 23:22 HellRoxYa wrote:On August 16 2012 22:51 hugman wrote:On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? No one can enforce international law so of course it will be broken when leaders see it fit to do so. Except "fit to do so" varies greatly. The US often pisses on agreements and rights of other nations. Why? Because 1. They can and because of 2. Their attitude. If they (populace -> politicians in the US) were of the opinion that this was the wrong thing to do, even if it would benefit them, then it wouldn't happen. I personally believe that the US, and other countries from time to time (For example Canada and the Kyoto agreement) are out of line. The only way to fix this is to create a mentality that we are fundamentally all the same, and build bridges of understanding between nations. It's a very large project but at least we've been going in the right general direction since WW2. Bridges of understanding between nations won't be enough to change how states act in self-interest within the current order. It will take something approximating world government for any real change to take place; and there are a number of substantial barriers preventing that from ever happening. Yes, it will, eventually. A world government will only happen after what I speak of, if ever. In any case borders have become more porous all over the world. While a realistic worldview is still very applicable to a few nations (the US being one of them) it isn't when it comes to, say, my own. So here's the point: If the US went and said "Well this bullshit we're doing isn't working" then suddenly they'd stop acting only in their selfinterest, and more importantly, they'd act differently even when thinking they are acting in their own selfinterest.
That's pretty idealistic, and while it would be nice it is hard to get states to act non-rationally (even if they act perversely to some moral order) when you consider the arena in which these states operate. You might be right though, if a global mindset shift happens with every individual state, maybe what you propose can take place. I highly doubt it though. There are significant transactional and procedural costs to setting up and maintaining a global governmental order.
The problem with what you propose is that the way things are working now actually does work for the states you isolate as being one of the few. I'll agree that if you aren't one of them, international law pretty much exists and you have to follow what is dictated by the larger states.
|
This must be the first time in history a person is granted asylum because of rape charges... What a circus. If he only went to Sweden when this all started it would've been over already. I've lost my respect for Assange. The women deserves their day in court.
|
This would almost be a ridiculous farce if it didnt have such wide impact. Thank the heavens for Ecuador, a king amongst nations!
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 23:30 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:24 SayGen wrote:
Assange is dangerous and must be eliminated. I fully back and support all nations who see his actions as a threat to world security and prosperity.
An enemy threat level is evaluated on 3 things.
Will
Capability
Range
Assange has all 3 checked off. He needs to be incapacitated (Jailed/Killed) from further assaults against world security. You have a very hard stance on his crime in Sweden, which is "condom broke during the act".
I thought it was 'he didn't use protection in the first place.'
|
Haha this is really silly .
The amount of pressure the Americans are possibly putting on everyone to get him is funny consideringh how much they espouse free speech, democracy and all that stuff.
If the UK govt really grabs Assange from the embassy or a diplomatic vehicle, good luck to all their embassies/diplomats everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
