* The Ecuadorians would have raised bloody hell very publicly -- they wasted no time publishing the letter from the UK about the 1987 law.
* If the raid stopped because of those demonstrating outside watching them, those demonstrating outside would have also raised bloody hell and recorded it all on their cell phones.
* If the police could sneak in such that the demonstrators couldn't see anything, they'd be quite capable of sneaking JA out the back too, and wouldn't have aborted the mission for that reason.
I know the UK is currently being run by a bunch of idiots, but I don't think the civil servants would let them authorise something so dumb so soon into the standoff.
Me and a co-worker were laughing about Assange's latest plea to his deluded fanclub. He seems to desperately want to be the target of a US witch-hunt. Too bad the only ones who want him is Sweden, and only for rape charges.
Craig Murray speaking outside the Ecuador Embassy not long before Assange.
He says whistle blowers aren't prosecuted for political crimes in the West but are, instead, set up for criminal prosecution. He says this is standard practice and cites a some examples, including his own case. He believes Assange has been set up.
Emphasizes that any UK police who forcibly enter the embassy can be legally extradited to Ecuador for the crime they are committing by invading Ecuador's territory.
I didn't watch it, have only read the press reports, but I think the only interesting parts was this about what happend wednesday night (after the UK letter/threat to Ecuador)
That's the whole point: China can. China always could. Just like every other nation always could.
Diplomatic status isn't a magic circle of protection. It's not an immutable law of physics. It's a convenience nations grant each other if and when it suits them.
No, it's an agreement that all countries agree to abide by. That's why the UK has received no support from any other country for its highly irresponsible, hostile action .
No. The men were repatriated to Egypt, a regime which was known at the time to use torture. It stood to reason that El Zari and Agiza might be mistreated and tortured if returned to Egypt.
What does not stand to reason is that Assange will be tortured or mistreated upon his extradition to Sweden.
Straw man (yet another!). Assange has taken refuge because he judges, rationally enough, that he would not be safe in the hands of the US "justice" system.
____________________________
uke2se said:
The asylum isn't protecting him from the US. It's harboring him from being charged with rape in Sweden.
I know of two cases. The Egyptian one, which was a repatriation on advice from our security services, and the hand over to west germany of terrorists involved in the 1975 embassy occuptaion in Stockholm.
Well, he's not totally alone in America. "Prominent Americans" like Michael Moore, Oliver Stone and Bill Maher have signed a petion asking Ecudor to help him!
Which it won't be because that would turn a stalemate into a crisis. Assange won't stay there for ever and he's not getting out in a 'diplomatic bag', so why should the UK do anything rash and hasty?
Emphasizes that any UK police who forcibly enter the embassy can be legally extradited to Ecuador for the crime they are committing by invading Ecuador's territory.
Or History and Literature: How Would Author X Have Assange Escape?
I suppose Agatha Christie would do something clever with a disguise and tricky manipulations of schedules and alibis. Ian Fleming would just have a simple car chase (albeit with a sexy, Ecuadorian female secretary involved somehow.) But what about Eric van Lustbader? Iain Banks? Terry Pratchett?
Pratchett would have him using the sewers, finding the remains of old London under the streets of modern London, encountering some subterranean inhabitants and tripping over a body.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
