UK threatens to enter the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest Wikileaks founder recently granted asylum in - Polidicks

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37269560]It's more like why the fuck would there not be laws about that? No country would allow for embassies if their diplomatic freedom was absolute.[/QUOTE] Well UK just displayed that diplomatic freedom isn't absolute as it can be revoked at any-time apparently. Diplomatic immunity is retarded as hell sometimes though.. see US in Iraq.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37269591]Well UK just displayed that diplomatic freedom isn't absolute as it can be revoked at any-time apparently. Diplomatic immunity is retarded as hell sometimes though.. see US in Iraq.[/QUOTE] The UK can't actually do what they're threatening to do though.

The man has only done good for the people, now we can see how ugly this world fucking is. God fucking sake.. Good luck Julian!

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37269624]The UK can't actually do what they're threatening to do though.[/QUOTE] I predict: Julian leaves Embassy, 2 minutes later UK announces it has revoked embassy rights and then 2 weeks later Assange leaves for Sweden. Then 2 days after that Assange is in the US.

[QUOTE=Bobie;37258581]why is the west trying to make a scapegoat out of assange, wikileaks can run almost entirely without his presence anyway[/QUOTE] You DO realize that the stuff he leaked got people killed, right?

[QUOTE=Ridge;37269724]You DO realize that the stuff he leaked got people killed, right?[/QUOTE] You do realise that the propaganda defeat is a far worse blow.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37269711]I predict: Julian leaves Embassy, 2 minutes later UK announces it has revoked embassy rights and then 2 weeks later Assange leaves for Sweden. Then 2 days after that Assange is in the US.[/QUOTE] The UK won't revoke embassy rights, the backlash would be too severe.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37269711]I predict: Julian leaves Embassy, 2 minutes later UK announces it has revoked embassy rights and then 2 weeks later Assange leaves for Sweden. Then 2 days after that Assange is in the US.[/QUOTE] Why would Julian leave the Embassy at all, given that as soon as he steps outside he'll get arrested? And if he's left the Embassy, why would the UK revoke Embassy rights?

He'll have to dig a tunnel or dress up as a scullery maid.

[QUOTE=Ridge;37269724]You DO realize that the stuff he leaked got people killed, right?[/QUOTE] Proof please. Ideally proof that proves your statement beyond reasonable doubt, if you don't have the proof then please refrain from saying that again.

[QUOTE=Ridge;37269724]You DO realize that the stuff he leaked got people killed, right?[/QUOTE] Source?

I hope someone organises a protest/sit-in outside the embassy to block any police action.

[QUOTE=Ridge;37269724]You DO realize that the stuff he leaked got people killed, right?[/QUOTE] You do realise you probably got that information from the very people who don't benefit from the leaks being out in the open, and the same people who get billions of dollars from the very people that the leaks are undermining?

[QUOTE=ijyt;37270114]I hope someone organises a protest/sit-in outside the embassy to block any police action.[/QUOTE] Our police would give a grand total of 0 fucks and just remove them too.

I'm ashamed by my so-called "government". [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;37269724]You DO realize that the stuff he leaked got people killed, right?[/QUOTE] You've been listening to and accepting too much jingoism as truth.

Just what I know on dip. vehicles. The police can't tell anyone to leave the vehicle, or enter it, but they can prevent it from moving. So they could just block the vehicle from moving until Assange has to come out because he is hungry/thirsty.

[QUOTE=rhx123;37271483]Just what I know on dip. vehicles. The police can't tell anyone to leave the vehicle, or enter it, but they can prevent it from moving. So they could just block the vehicle from moving until Assange has to come out because he is hungry/thirsty.[/QUOTE] Hence why they're most likely gonna use a helicopter.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37264294]actually, that's because the red notice is the only actual arrest warrant interpol has [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_notice#Notice_types[/url][/QUOTE] you have to admit that when he gets extradited to wherever that the government will treat him unfairly because of his circumstances, though

[QUOTE=The mouse;37258707]The problem is that the people who he "raped" didn't even consider it rape until it was brought up.[/QUOTE] My mom actually knew one of the persons - or at least she had met her a lot of times (I'll ask her again if needs be), and she said that she was always kind of sensationalist and so on. Still, I would like him to go to court - just not under the circumstances that he's getting now.

Just to clarify - if you go through the Stratfor emails released by Wikileaks, one of the analysts says that the charges are set up. It's just analysis, no source but if America's own global intelligence agency can clearly see that these charges are fake, we can too. Also about the names being released putting people in danger thing - it's regrettable and it's shit, it's awful but how else would you have it? The deaths would be terrible (though we haven't heard of any), but there's no grey area to freedom of information, you can't ask Wikileaks to censor the information it's releasing as a protest against the government censoring information it releases to the public. You can't have 'selective freedom of information', and there are so many names and dangers involved that if they needed to doctor every sensitive bit of info that causes danger to somebody you'd be left with no useful information left, just a bunch of out of context statements.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;37276994]Just to clarify - if you go through the Stratfor emails released by Wikileaks, one of the analysts says that the charges are set up. It's just analysis, no source but if America's own global intelligence agency can clearly see that these charges are fake, we can too. Also about the names being released putting people in danger thing - it's regrettable and it's shit, it's awful but how else would you have it? The deaths would be terrible (though we haven't heard of any), but there's no grey area to freedom of information, you can't ask Wikileaks to censor the information it's releasing as a protest against the government censoring information it releases to the public. You can't have 'selective freedom of information', and there are so many names and dangers involved that if they needed to doctor every sensitive bit of info that causes danger to somebody you'd be left with no useful information left, just a bunch of out of context statements.[/QUOTE] I'd say that national security is more important than freedom of information, though in reality you're completely right. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] Well, in comparison between hypothetical hindsight and reality.

I think national security is important, yeah. It should be something we work hard to achieve but to me a lot of the files seem to show governments abusing their power in the name of national security. So it's a fine line Also, stumbled upon this before and thought it was an interesting: [QUOTE]In the tussle over the fate of Julian Assange, the precise scope of the European arrest warrant is yet again in danger of being forgotten. The warrant is an essential crime-fighting instrument in its correct application, which is "for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution". This must mean an imminent charge. But the suggestion that it can be used at an earlier, investigative, stage of proceedings keeps coming back. You quote a Foreign Office spokeswoman as saying that "the UK has a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences" – whether or not this was a slip of the tongue, it is still an unfortunate mistake.[/QUOTE] To storm an embassy to arrest a man is one thing, but to storm an embassy just to question him is another. I don't think anyone agrees with the way the foreign office has conducted itself in this matter - absolutely overt, aggressive and in doing so setting a legal precedent to violate the sovereign turf of an embassy - which in my opinion is going to have a much more lasting effect than anything wikileaks has released.