England just violated international law

Lucas said:
No offense BamaStangGuy, but if you're going to go all your live by waiting for an "official information" as to what you think is real (Fox, CNN, w/e) you will just end up watching what they want you to see. There is much more to everything than official information. My thought on these have been opened up by what you can see on Mexico happening right now. On all those serious issues which I'm not going to talk about (unless someone wants me to), the biggest involved companies are the two national tv broadcasters and HSBC, a few US politicians and more (There are sources too).

Just my personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually, I read everything on the internet I can get a hold of news wise. Not a single reputable source is claiming International law has been broken or that a raid has taken place. Not even http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/08/201281614343860431.html has gone that far.

So spare me the mainstream media rhetoric that everyone seems to default to if you don't become emotionally irrational at the first sign of a problem, which is what the original poster did based on two live video streams he watched.
 
BamaStangGuy said:
Actually, I read everything on the internet I can get a hold of news wise. Not a single reputable source is claiming International law has been broken or that a raid has taken place. Not even http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/08/201281614343860431.html has gone that far.

So spare me the mainstream media rhetoric that everyone seems to default to if you don't become emotionally irrational at the first sign of a problem, which is what the original poster did based on two live video streams he watched.
Click to expand...
Understood, I was just saying as it felt like you just said it because you hadn't heard it on the "main" news. Wasn't speaking specifically about this.
 
There's nothing in the mainstream media here in the UK yet. The biggest news website (BBC News) leads with the story but only saying Police are outside, they do not mention anything being stormed. The biggest tabloid newspaper (sure to break any news of exciting activity like this) leads with stories about Cheryl Cole dating a drunk, women in a craze to take self portraits of their cleavage, and Manchester United signing Robin Van Persie.

So either it hasn't happened or the government has a gagging order on the press. The latter isn't all that unusual here in the UK, you hear (later) about press restrictions for various reasons.

If the embassy is entered in this way it kind of renders the whole point about embassies pointless and makes a mockery of the whole thing. However, it also reflects just how badly those in power want to get this man!
 
GeekHost said:
Until they arrest Assange, I don't see how international law was broken. Think your jumping the gun a little too soon here.
Click to expand...
I'd say breaching an embassy by force counts... Despite what you read, they tried to do so last night.

From the live feed from within the embassy; I watched armed police kick in the door (side door) and be "greeted" by the armed security defending the embassy. This was followed by a lot of shouting and people waving guns at each other. The live video feed was cut off from there.
 
Nixon famously said "If the President does it, it is automatically legal" or something of the sort.

"International Law" is something for us and the Brits and the big powers to enforce on others. That's the way power works.

As to "trusted media", I'm afraid the mainstream media does 99% of what they are told by the government. There have been many big stories which the NYTimes withheld for months, or forever, because the white house told them to. Really.

You can rely on them to report mass murders...and tornados, but when it comes to political stories less so.
 
Are there any countries, UK, Ecuador, or any others, complaining about this?

Assange is a "bad guy" to both the US and UK, he's not a hero, nor a freedom fighter. I don't care if they had to kill some kittens to get him.

Just my opinion.

Britain, the BBC noted, could lift the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status to fulfill a "legal obligation" to extradite Assange using the "Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987":
That allows the U.K. to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy on U.K. soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr. Assange for breaching the terms of his bail.​
Click to expand...
​
 
SneakyDave said:
Are there any countries, UK, Ecuador, or any others, complaining about this?

Assange is a "bad guy" to both the US and UK, he's not a hero, nor a freedom fighter. I don't care if they had to kill some kittens to get him.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree, I'd rather have have kittens slaughtered than allow a man to release information to the public.
 
Or rape women, which is the reason for the UK's attempt to nab him.

He can stay indefinitely int the Ecuadorian embassy for all I care. It isn't like Ecuador is the shining example of free speech anyway.
 
I don't know how he could have violated the orders of his house arrest unless he was charged with something. He fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, which was a violation of his house arrest.

He thwarted US law, he thwarted Swedish law, he thwarted UK law, and it won't be long before the Edcuadorians get tired of him.
 
RastaLulz said:
He hasn't even been charged for that, they just wanted to question him; he even offered to be questioned at the embassy.
Click to expand...

They have enough evidence to convict him.. They don't issue out of country warrants and storm an embassy for the sake of just questioning. They tell you to please come in as we have a few questions for you to lure you in, then of course take you in to custody from there.

He raped two teenage girls and leaked documents of my country, I hope a UK sniper see's what appears to be going for a weapon and saves us our tax money of him being put on death row here in the US. Leaking classified information is not freedom of speech, it is treason.
 
SneakyDave said:
Or rape women, which is the reason for the UK's attempt to nab him.

He can stay indefinitely int the Ecuadorian embassy for all I care. It isn't like Ecuador is the shining example of free speech anyway.
Click to expand...
You have no idea. The UK want to extradite him as that is what has been laid down in law for them to do so. So far he is still innocent (innocent until proven guilty).
 
GeekHost said:
They have enough evidence to convict him.. They don't issue out of country warrants and storm an embassy for the sake of just questioning. They tell you to please come in as we have a few questions for you to lure you in, then of course take you in to custody from there.

He raped two teenage girls and leaked documents of my country, I hope a UK sniper see's what appears to be going for a weapon and saves us our tax money of him being put on death row here in the US. Leaking classified information is not freedom of speech, it is treason.
Click to expand...
Again, innocent until proven guilty. He does not want to face any charges until he knows he won't be extradited to the US for other charges.
 
I'm reading some of the replies here and can't help but either feel pity for some of you; for simply being ignorant and just not knowing any better or simply just laugh at your stupidity.

The women who have came forward have been proven to have connections with America's government (that's no crack pot, tin hat theory, it is fact).

Further more, he has been willing to answer any and all questions, openly, but Sweden has refused to speak with him, ever.

In fact in an unrelated case... It is interesting to note that another person; in another case wanted for murder .... Sweden authorities were willing to travel and question the person in another country. Since than, Sweden authorities have also questions someone else (in another unrelated case) on the grounds of rape (same thing they claim to want to talk to Assange about).

So you have 1 murder and 1 rape, both times Sweden was willing to question them in person in different countries and yet when it comes to Assange, Sweden authorities refuse to talk with him.

Make no mistake... This whole issue Sweden is claiming about Assange, has nothing to do with the case in question.
 
I doubt they'll take any sudden action to arrest him at the embassy. The fact he was granted asylum is just one step in what will continue to be some tedious soap opera.

If he leaves the embassy, he'll be arrested. If he manages to get in a diplomatic car the car will be stopped and there'll be a stand off. If Ecuador tries to make him into a diplomat, the UK can simply refuse to accept that he is one. And if they try to use a diplomatic bag, then the UK will claim that it's being used for improper purposes and block it. Assange is stuck there until a deal is worked out.

I imagine Ecuador is only involved because they want unrelated concessions from the UK and will likely turn him over after some negotiations.
 
Top Bottom