{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/16/2012 9:16:10 AM
306
Ecuadorian Embassy in London Under Police Attack
At 12GMT, (Around 3 hours) police plan to storm the embassy (a VERY illegal act).
[url=http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork]Here[/url] is a stream, recorded 2 hours ago, there are already 10 police officers inside the embassy.
I urge our friends in London to get down and protest this atrocity.
For those who don't know, Julian Assange is currently seeking asylum in Ecuador.
There is currently a very small amount of press covering this.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dark Martyr 117 I still don't understand what everyone is making a big deal out of. Someone please explain to me in the simplest way possible, what the Hell the problem is.[/quote]Julian Assange, a man wanted for -blam!- Assault in Sweden and generally hated because of his relations with Wikileaks has taken refuge in an Ecuadorean Embassy to escape from the British Government extraditing him to Sweden so he can be questioned. The Ecuadorean Embassy is giving him asylum based on the idea that Assange wouldn't get a fair trial in Sweden. So, basically, The British Government has threatened to invade (this probably isn't the EXACT word they used, considering it came from the Ecuadorean Foreign Minister's lips) the Ecuadorean embassy, which is a violation of some of the most base International laws of the Vienna Convention, and could even start a war between the two nations.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dark Martyr 117 I still don't understand what everyone is making a big deal out of. Someone please explain to me in the simplest way possible, what the Hell the problem is.[/quote] It's against international law to enter an embassy without permission, let alone raid it. It pretty much equates to an invasion of Ecuador, in legal terms.
-
The charges against him are baseless. They just want him in Sweden because they know the Swedish government will cow-tow to the American government and extradite him immediately.
-
I still don't understand what everyone is making a big deal out of. Someone please explain to me in the simplest way possible, what the Hell the problem is.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aythor [quote]For all we know the proper clearance could have already been given. [/quote] It doesn't matter if they have "clearance"? It's against international law to storm an embassy, no questions asked. If the Ecuadorians stormed the British embassy in Ecuador, everyone would be outraged, and Britain would probably invade Ecuador.[/quote] And this is a bad thing... how?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] oaklandp8ntbalr [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aythor If you honestly believe that's why they want to arrest him, you should really take the government's -blam!- out of your mouth.[/quote] There's an arrest warrant for assaulting two women. I don't care if it looks like a conspiracy, justice is still justice and he needs to stand trial for it. If he's innocent, he walks free. You're talking to a Swedish citizen here, I know more about my country's justice system than you do.[/quote] Thank. You. The man is under investigation and justice must be done. And after he's done in Sweden he should be tried in the US along with Bradley Manning for releasing information that threatens lives and operations. He's done a brilliant job disguising himself as a martyr and he really appeals to the people's urge to bring down "the man," but I don't buy it for a second. There is a reason stuff is classified, and it's certainly not to hide things from the public.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Aythor [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xXIHAYD0IXx I must ask. When the majority of the police force does not carry a gun, how do they plan on storming anything? Oh, and the Uranium enrichment levels of a nuclear power plant (about 5% U235) are nowhere near high enough for a nuclear strike, which requires enrichment around 95% U235. You could maybe make a dirty bomb though.[/quote] UK Police have armed response units.[/quote]I know. : ) I was trying to make a joke. Apparently it wasn't very funny. Although it would be interesting to see them try to seige an embassy with billy clubs and pepper spray.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xXIHAYD0IXx I must ask. When the majority of the police force does not carry a gun, how do they plan on storming anything? Oh, and the Uranium enrichment levels of a nuclear power plant (about 5% U235) are nowhere near high enough for a nuclear strike, which requires enrichment around 95% U235. You could maybe make a dirty bomb though.[/quote] UK Police have armed response units.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] iRuN KFC [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] IcyWind [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] iRuN KFC [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord Storming that embassy means invading Ecuador. Invading Ecuador means war between the UK and Ecuador.[/quote] No, it doesn't. As it's been stated several times in the thread, an embassy is not sovereign soil of the country that's based in it.[/quote] It kind of is.[/quote] No it isn't[/quote] [i]The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations codified a custom that has been in place for centuries when it established the "rule of inviolability". This states that local police and security forces are not permitted to enter, unless they have the express permission of the ambassador - even though the embassy remains the territory of the host nation.[/i] Got that little bit of info from [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17905985]here[/url] [Edited on 08.16.2012 9:58 AM PDT]
-
I must ask. When the majority of the police force does not carry a gun, how do they plan on storming anything? Oh, and the Uranium enrichment levels of a nuclear power plant (about 5% U235) are nowhere near high enough for a nuclear strike, which requires enrichment around 95% U235. You could maybe make a dirty bomb though.
-
Also, I can't believe people in this thread actually believe that documents showing US corruption and atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan should be withheld at the luxury of protecting the soldiers who committed the atrocities. What about the innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians who get murdered every day and are labelled "collateral damage". What about the innocents whose homes are being destroyed. All to fight an unwinnable, unjustifiable, oil fueled war, that people mindlessly support out of fear caused by terrorist attacks.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] bjb yo [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 Anyone who thinks that the UK needs to or would consider such a barbarous act needs to stop reading conspiracy pamphlets and get some fresh air.[/quote]You do remember that the British government literally DID threaten to do this, right? So yeah, I would assume they're at the VERY least considering it.[/quote] The leader of every nuclear power has the equivalent of the US "football" near them at all times. Which means, they have the ability, the "threat", the capability, and have clearly considered the fact that they can immediately initiate a nuclear (limited or all out) strike against any nation on the planet at a moments notice. Does that mean it's likely? Some 40+ years of the US football existing and not even being used tells me that while not completely reasonable, public officials are not madmen either.[/quote]You raise a good point, but the situations differ in a few ways. One, most Western Powers don't go about threatening to actually USE their "footballs" all the time, so when they do, you know it's probably serious. Secondly, in a week after giving the embassy their prior notice, they'll have every legal right to go into the embassy and do what they want, and they supposedly wouldn't be doing anything wrong. Will Ecuador still be pissed? Probably, but there's probably not too much they could do about it legally.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord Storming that embassy means invading Ecuador. Invading Ecuador means war between the UK and Ecuador.[/quote] I am still waiting for any link or evidence that the Ecuadorian Embassy has been stormed or is under siege.[/quote] It hasn't happened. But maybe it will.[/quote] There's no reason for it to happen. In order to get onto a plane or a ship to Ecuador, Assange has to step onto English soil. There is no option. Either stepping out of the embassy to get into a car, stepping out of the car to get onto a plane, no matter what, when or where, he HAS to step on English soil and at that point, the warrant for his arrest (for violating the terms of his bail, for failure to report in as he agreed to do, and for failure to appear in court as required as a condition of his previous house arrest) he is subject to arrest by the police. There is no need to storm the embassy. Why in the world would ANYONE think that was a reasonable or likely course of action? Stupid people, irrational people storm embassies. The UK embassy was recently stormed in Tehran. That was a mess and a sign of a rogue and uncivilized government attempting to threaten and intimidate a foreign power. Anyone who thinks that the UK needs to or would consider such a barbarous act needs to stop reading conspiracy pamphlets and get some fresh air.[/quote] The UK government has stated it will not grant Assange safe passage to Ecuador. This won't end well for him. I am aware that he needs to leave the embassy to get to Ecuador. I think the police considered temporarily removing his dimplomatic immunity to arrest him.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] HALO12325 I honestly doubt the claim that he raped the two women in Sweden. As well, I doubt that the reveals have put the lives of troops at list, but merely tarnished the US's name (not something I like). Sweden is just America's lapdog and following their orders. It doesn't really matter to me what happens either way. [/quote]This.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord Storming that embassy means invading Ecuador. Invading Ecuador means war between the UK and Ecuador.[/quote] I am still waiting for any link or evidence that the Ecuadorian Embassy has been stormed or is under siege.[/quote] The British government threatened, in writing, to "use any means necessary" to arrest Julian Assange. Just because they smile and are polite does not mean their intentions are pure. Britain has refused to extradite a [url=http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f225/britain-refuses-extradite-us-most-wanted-pedophile-107609/]peadophile[/url]. This is obviously a politically motivated action.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] bjb yo [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 Anyone who thinks that the UK needs to or would consider such a barbarous act needs to stop reading conspiracy pamphlets and get some fresh air.[/quote]You do remember that the British government literally DID threaten to do this, right? So yeah, I would assume they're at the VERY least considering it.[/quote] The leader of every nuclear power has the equivalent of the US "football" near them at all times. Which means, they have the ability, the "threat", the capability, and have clearly considered the fact that they can immediately initiate a nuclear (limited or all out) strike against any nation on the planet at a moments notice. Does that mean it's likely? Some 40+ years of the US football existing and not even being used tells me that while not completely reasonable, public officials are not madmen either.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Municipal Bonds Ecuador is being retarded. I guess I should start molesting women on the British streets then running to the Ecuador embassy to chill.[/quote]I lol'd.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 Anyone who thinks that the UK needs to or would consider such a barbarous act needs to stop reading conspiracy pamphlets and get some fresh air.[/quote]You do remember that the British government literally DID threaten to do this, right? So yeah, I would assume they're at the VERY least considering it.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord Storming that embassy means invading Ecuador. Invading Ecuador means war between the UK and Ecuador.[/quote] I am still waiting for any link or evidence that the Ecuadorian Embassy has been stormed or is under siege.[/quote] It hasn't happened. But maybe it will.[/quote]It probably WILL happen if the situation isn't diffused within a week. Here's a quote from a british official: "Under British law we can give them a week's notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection." That same quote has been repeated by countless news sources, [url=http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/15/13301851-ecuador-uk-threatened-to-break-wikileaks-julian-assange-out-of-embassy?lite]here's just one of them.[/url] So, basically, if that holds true, Ecuador has a week before the British government takes matter into their own hands... Who knows what could happen between now and then.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord Storming that embassy means invading Ecuador. Invading Ecuador means war between the UK and Ecuador.[/quote] I am still waiting for any link or evidence that the Ecuadorian Embassy has been stormed or is under siege.[/quote] It hasn't happened. But maybe it will.[/quote] There's no reason for it to happen. In order to get onto a plane or a ship to Ecuador, Assange has to step onto English soil. There is no option. Either stepping out of the embassy to get into a car, stepping out of the car to get onto a plane, no matter what, when or where, he HAS to step on English soil and at that point, the warrant for his arrest (for violating the terms of his bail, for failure to report in as he agreed to do, and for failure to appear in court as required as a condition of his previous house arrest) he is subject to arrest by the police. There is no need to storm the embassy. Why in the world would ANYONE think that was a reasonable or likely course of action? Stupid people, irrational people storm embassies. The UK embassy was recently stormed in Tehran. That was a mess and a sign of a rogue and uncivilized government attempting to threaten and intimidate a foreign power. Anyone who thinks that the UK needs to or would consider such a barbarous act needs to stop reading conspiracy pamphlets and get some fresh air.
-
I honestly doubt the claim that he raped the two women in Sweden. As well, I doubt that the reveals have put the lives of troops at list, but merely tarnished the US's name (not something I like). Sweden is just America's lapdog and following their orders. It doesn't really matter to me what happens either way.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord Storming that embassy means invading Ecuador. Invading Ecuador means war between the UK and Ecuador.[/quote] I am still waiting for any link or evidence that the Ecuadorian Embassy has been stormed or is under siege.[/quote] It hasn't happened. But maybe it will.
-
What -blam!-, they planted this -blam!- about Him rapeing two girls, both denied it ever happening. And if they storm that building, their just asking for trouble, [shit] will get real. [Edited on 08.16.2012 9:30 AM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] IcyWind [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] iRuN KFC [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord Storming that embassy means invading Ecuador. Invading Ecuador means war between the UK and Ecuador.[/quote] No, it doesn't. As it's been stated several times in the thread, an embassy is not sovereign soil of the country that's based in it.[/quote] It kind of is.[/quote] No it isn't
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] iRuN KFC [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord Storming that embassy means invading Ecuador. Invading Ecuador means war between the UK and Ecuador.[/quote] No, it doesn't. As it's been stated several times in the thread, an embassy is not sovereign soil of the country that's based in it.[/quote] It kind of is.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NSCLord Storming that embassy means invading Ecuador. Invading Ecuador means war between the UK and Ecuador.[/quote] No, it doesn't. As it's been stated several times in the thread, an embassy is not sovereign soil of the country that's based in it.
