Diplomatic immunity WTF!

[Stubby]

Britain might 'storm' Ecuadorian embassy to get Julian Assange

Nice precedent if they do.
Especially since he is only ,'officially', a suspected rapist. Good thing he isn't the mass murderer from Norway.

The Americans must really want him bad if they can convince Britain to violate diplomatic convention.


Oh by the way: Hi!

[choff]

Julian Assange is MK Monarch, you can google 'wiki of the damned' to read up on the drugged out intel connected mind control cult he was raised in.

Was reading about a little falling out he had with the cofounder of Wikileaks. The guy said you couldn't buy food and share it with him, he'd just try to grab it all, wolf it down then wipe his hands off on his clothes.

The guy said he wasn't very nice to the women he saw him with either. Consistent behavior for someone raised like an animal, which is what The Family were doing with kids.

[tomclarke]

The legal position in UK probably does not allow them to storm embassy, since he has broken no law in this country.

I have some sympathy with him, the issue is that if extradited to Sweden on what has always looked like a manufactured charge who can be then extradited to US where his treatment will be unreasonable.

Of course, if he is a rapist then I have no sympathy.

[paperburn1]

The legal position in UK probably does not allow them to storm embassy, since he has broken no law in this country.

I have some sympathy with him, the issue is that if extradited to Sweden on what has always looked like a manufactured charge who can be then extradited to US where his treatment will be unreasonable.

Of course, if he is a rapist then I have no sympathy.

The problem is not what he has released to the public but what he has not released to the public that has everyone worried.

[zapkitty]

... Of course, if he is a rapist then I have no sympathy.

Of course rape is no joking matter but... there are no rape charges against Assange as rape is commonly understood.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/de ... nge-sweden

http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... major.html

The sex was consensual... but then he pissed off the Empire.

[Stubby]

The legal position in UK probably does not allow them to storm embassy, since he has broken no law in this country.

I have some sympathy with him, the issue is that if extradited to Sweden on what has always looked like a manufactured charge who can be then extradited to US where his treatment will be unreasonable.

Of course, if he is a rapist then I have no sympathy.

So if he broke a UK law, it would be fine with you that they storm the embassy? An embassy is sovereign territory, so storming one is an act of war.

And as I understand the rape charge, he had consensual sex but ejaculated inside which his partner didn't want which is the basis of the rape charge. I understand that many European countries have a similar law.

[tomclarke]

The legal position in UK probably does not allow them to storm embassy, since he has broken no law in this country.

I have some sympathy with him, the issue is that if extradited to Sweden on what has always looked like a manufactured charge who can be then extradited to US where his treatment will be unreasonable.

Of course, if he is a rapist then I have no sympathy.

So if he broke a UK law, it would be fine with you that they storm the embassy? An embassy is sovereign territory, so storming one is an act of war.

And as I understand the rape charge, he had consensual sex but ejaculated inside which his partner didn't want which is the basis of the rape charge. I understand that many European countries have a similar law.

There was a law passed quite a while ago when a sniper killed a police officer from inside a foreign embassy.

As for the rape charge it was investigated and left with no action because it was not considered serious enough to warrant thia. It was only taken up, by a different district, after the wikileaks US exposee made him infamous.

Assange appears a pretty weird and unlikable individual. I am not sure that wikileaks is good for the world - though it serves a useful function. But the prosecution of this charge looks like a trumped up political case based on US pressure. I don't like political trials.

[Diogenes]

The legal position in UK probably does not allow them to storm embassy, since he has broken no law in this country.

I have some sympathy with him, the issue is that if extradited to Sweden on what has always looked like a manufactured charge who can be then extradited to US where his treatment will be unreasonable.

Of course, if he is a rapist then I have no sympathy.

So if he broke a UK law, it would be fine with you that they storm the embassy? An embassy is sovereign territory, so storming one is an act of war.

And as I understand the rape charge, he had consensual sex but ejaculated inside which his partner didn't want which is the basis of the rape charge. I understand that many European countries have a similar law.

There was a law passed quite a while ago when a sniper killed a police officer from inside a foreign embassy.

As for the rape charge it was investigated and left with no action because it was not considered serious enough to warrant thia. It was only taken up, by a different district, after the wikileaks US exposee made him infamous.

Assange appears a pretty weird and unlikable individual. I am not sure that wikileaks is good for the world - though it serves a useful function. But the prosecution of this charge looks like a trumped up political case based on US pressure. I don't like political trials.

I don't either. I personally think the silly bastard ought to have been "droned." Innocent people died because this little shit decided to play god.

[ScottL]

Diogenes, can you cite where innocent people were killed because of him. When this story was news, it was confirmed that although they were leaking information, they weren't leaking current information that would effect any on-going operations. They were quite careful about that aspect of the release.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes, can you cite where innocent people were killed because of him. When this story was news, it was confirmed that although they were leaking information, they weren't leaking current information that would effect any on-going operations. They were quite careful about that aspect of the release.

You really ought to get better news sources than the Propaganda arm of the Democrat party. (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.)




http://www.anorak.co.uk/267106/politici ... ting.html/

http://registan.net/index.php/2010/07/3 ... d-afghans/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/wikileaks- ... sad-agent/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le2165339/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/25 ... jean-lopez

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john-hawki ... n-assange/



Yes, Wikileaks subsequently changed their policy so as to redact the names of people who might be killed because Wikileaks had revealed their identity. By the time they had done this, the horse had already left the barn.

[ScottL]

Diogenes, can you cite where innocent people were killed because of him. When this story was news, it was confirmed that although they were leaking information, they weren't leaking current information that would effect any on-going operations. They were quite careful about that aspect of the release.

You really ought to get better news sources than the Propaganda arm of the Democrat party. (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.)




http://www.anorak.co.uk/267106/politici ... ting.html/

http://registan.net/index.php/2010/07/3 ... d-afghans/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/wikileaks- ... sad-agent/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le2165339/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/25 ... jean-lopez

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john-hawki ... n-assange/



Yes, Wikileaks subsequently changed their policy so as to redact the names of people who might be killed because Wikileaks had revealed their identity. By the time they had done this, the horse had already left the barn.

The first link simply states 13,000 killed as fact without citing any source(s) and then consequently links back to itself. I'm really looking for cited data as I'm not going to take a blog's word. I went through the rest of the links and they appear to also do the same (link backs, claims, no citing of anyone). The closest was an individual whose name was released but sadly this individual had died 2 years prior to the release, all other named individuals have been confirmed a live.

I'm leaving the benefit of the doubt here because I could definitely see where the release of such information could result in such terrible issues, I'm just lacking any sources of data.

[tomclarke]

You really ought to get better news sources than the Propaganda arm of the Democrat party. (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.)


http://www.anorak.co.uk/267106/politici ... ting.html/

http://registan.net/index.php/2010/07/3 ... d-afghans/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/wikileaks- ... sad-agent/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le2165339/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/25 ... jean-lopez

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john-hawki ... n-assange/

You mean like propaganda arm of the republican party?

[palladin9479]

Assange appears a pretty weird and unlikable individual. I am not sure that wikileaks is good for the world - though it serves a useful function. But the prosecution of this charge looks like a trumped up political case based on US pressure. I don't like political trials.

You can be guaranteed that isn't the case. If the US wanted him dead / apprehended they wouldn't be making a scene about it. You would hear absolutely nothing, no charges, no deliberate media "leaks", no controversy. Just one night he'd be walking home from a grocery store, the next nobody would ever hear from him again.

It's sad and messed up but under Bush the US had a policy of detain first, ask questions later. Even on US citizens inside the USA. Obama doesn't answer to the same masters that Bush did but those individuals are still directors and assistant directors of various three letter government agencies.

This is all just loud noise designed to discourage anyone else from attempting such a stunt again. Many informants died due to that a$$hat. He didn't do it for the "good of the world" he did it for his own ego and never thought that he was about to get people killed. And before any other jacka$$ wants to chime in, the majority of the info released was undigested intel reports. That means the informants names were in plain language as was what they were telling the US military. That guy who warned the local US detachment that some insurgents *cough* I mean "freedom fighters" were seen planting bombs last night, yeah him and his family will be dead now. They would of had to be killed in order to send a message to not tip off the military or provide them with information.

Most of that stuff looked like it was a dump off a intel analysts PST folder, which means no obfuscation, redaction or any other techniques to hide the names of innocents.

So yes that guy was an idiot who got other people killed for no reason, there is nothing the world now "knows" that it didn't know before. It's just more food for conspiracy theorists.

[Skipjack]

Many informants died due to that a$$hat.

References, please (and not the BS ones that Diogenes posted).

[GIThruster]

Does it really matter? What this toady said was that he hoped there would be no repercussions to all the informants whose names were released by him, but that the risk was worth it because the material needed to be put out there. He owned the fact that releasing classified material was more important to him than the lives of all these individuals and claimed he offered to let DOD redact his stollen documents in order to remove the names but they refused.

Basically, he had a bunch of stollen documents, and when he tried to blackmail the US government, they refused to cooperate, so he released the docs as they were and claims this is an acceptable risk. Well, it's not.

It's not acceptable to make use of stollen goods like this. It's not acceptable to deliberately violate the secrecy of a lawful government without cause and there was no cause fort this except for this toad's hatred of the US. No purpose served. It's also not okay to risk the lives of good people for the sake of a stunt. Basically, there is nothing okay about what this jerk did.

We're not talking about breaking Watergate here folks. What do people think justified this kind of deliberate action?

I'm shocked the asshole is still breathing. I'm sure he'll be paying for his actions for the rest of his life.