Julian Assange - What a tosser.

[Wildeybeast]

Does anyone else here really want to punch him in his stupid face? The guy is wanted for questioning on the rather serious matter of sexual assault and he runs off and hides in the embassy of Ecuador who for reasons best known to themselves have decided to involve themselves in a matter that has bugger all to do with them and grant him political asylum when he is facing criminal charges, not political ones. I was happy to say, fine, let him spend the rest of his life in the embassy and they can look after him for all that time, but after his balcony performance, whipping up his frenzied mass of deluded supporters in true evil dictator style, I say revoke their embassy status, storm in there, pepper spray his face and get him out of our country as soon as bloody possible.

Who is this man that he thinks he can make demands on the governments of three separate nations whilst using the guise of freedom of the press and imagined political persecution to try and save his own miserable hide from potentially spending some considerable time in prison in Sweden for committing some of the more despicable crimes a man is capable of? I don't know who I despise more, him or the deranged fanatics that hang off his every word and waste police time and tax payers money supervising their pointless protest.

For anyone with no idea what I'm ranting about, go here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19310335).

[Psychosplodge]

I thought it consensual but the lack of protection wasn't and that's sexual assault there but our nearest equivalent is rape?

But yes he looks slimy, and there's a case to answer, though our government looks like an arse for threatening to enter the embassy, he's not going to stay there forever....

[Mr Mystery]

The man is a horrible little poo-weasel.

He knowingly published sensitive and restricted documents for his own ego, and seems to feel he should be immune to prosection. Balls quite frankly.

He is refusing to go to Sweden on account he claims they will automatically extradite him to the US, where he claims he'll be tortured and then sentenced to death. Poppycock, and he knows it.

He can sod right off, the massive coward. Why should Sweden state they won't extradite him? What makes him think he's so special he can be given guarantees to prevent his justified prosecution??

[Denzark]

We managed to get into the Iranian Embasy OK back in 1980...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_embassy_siege

[Psychosplodge]

not quite the same lol

[Wildeybeast]

I thought it consensual but the lack of protection wasn't and that's sexual assault there but our nearest equivalent is rape?

But yes he looks slimy, and there's a case to answer, though our government looks like an arse for threatening to enter the embassy, he's not going to stay there forever....

My bad, I think it is just questioning for sexual assault. Still a complete dickwad.


The man is a horrible little poo-weasel.

He knowingly published sensitive and restricted documents for his own ego, and seems to feel he should be immune to prosection. Balls quite frankly.

He is refusing to go to Sweden on account he claims they will automatically extradite him to the US, where he claims he'll be tortured and then sentenced to death. Poppycock, and he knows it.

He can sod right off, the massive coward. Why should Sweden state they won't extradite him? What makes him think he's so special he can be given guarantees to prevent his justified prosecution??

My thoughts exactly. You do the crime, you do the time. He knew releasing this stuff was against the law in various countries and that the US may well come after him (which by they haven't even said they are going to do yet). Just because he thinks it shouldn't be a crime doesn't make it so.

[Mr Mystery]

And he should be aware that freedom of the press doesn't exactly extend to official secrets, or potentially embarassing documents.

And for this next comment, I'm quite aware of the irony, but....he is the worst kind of keyboard warrior. His greasy weaseling is almost as funny as Lulzec and Anonymous selling their mates out at the drop of a hat once they start getting nicked!

[Necron2.0]

I say leave him there. Keep the press away. Shut down communications in and out of the embassy. Leave him with no voice until he surrenders himself. Make it painfully obvious he is not getting out of the country and simply ignore his antics. Eventually the Ecuadorians will get sick and tired of him. Force them to hand him over with an official apology, otherwise they can feed him, clothe him and otherwise "enjoy" his company forever.

[eldargal]

He is an arse. I understand the worry about sending him back to the US to be executed over airing their dirty little secrets, but that would be easier to do here than in Sweden. It's just silly.

As to what he did, I rather agree with the logic that if a guvmint doesn't want to be embaressed it shouldn't keep dirty secrets. I don't trust governments and the more disclosure and transperancy the better even if it is forces through people like Assange and whatsisname that leaked the documents to him in the first place.

[DarkLink]

The problem with Assange is that, in addition to the dirty little secrets, he also released documents that could get people killed. The reason the military classifies so many documents is because sometimes the tiniest details can get soldiers or spies killed. In particular, Wikileaks revealed the names of many Afghans who aided US forces, making them prime targets for Taliban retaliation.

Plus, those dirty little secrets can be dangerous in and of themselves. If someone says something, say, anti-Islamic related to Iran, Iran will be pushed that much closer to wanting to nuke the USA and kill millions of people when they eventually do develop nuclear weapons (and that's a question of when, not if). That dirty little secret might be stupid, and outing the idiot who said it might be a noble goal, but not if it endangers lives.

Assange either lacks the moral judgement to care who gets hurt, or the intelligence to filter what is and isn't harmless. I vote for both.

[Mr Mystery]

The problem with Assange is that, in addition to the dirty little secrets, he also released documents that could get people killed. The reason the military classifies so many documents is because sometimes the tiniest details can get soldiers or spies killed. In particular, Wikileaks revealed the names of many Afghans who aided US forces, making them prime targets for Taliban retaliation.

Plus, those dirty little secrets can be dangerous in and of themselves. If someone says something, say, anti-Islamic related to Iran, Iran will be pushed that much closer to wanting to nuke the USA and kill millions of people when they eventually do develop nuclear weapons (and that's a question of when, not if). That dirty little secret might be stupid, and outing the idiot who said it might be a noble goal, but not if it endangers lives.

Assange either lacks the moral judgement to care who gets hurt, or the intelligence to filter what is and isn't harmless. I vote for both.

Got it in one! Perhaps a little too slippery slope for my tastes though :p But fair points all.

Governments must have secrets. They are a necessity, and not a modern one. Wiki leaks isn't about transparency, it's about Assange's colossal ego. You're not a 'whistle blower' you're a complete git.

[eldargal]

But did anyone actually die? Was anyone hurt? Are those that are hurt by these intelligence leaks lives worth more than the hundreds of people killed with impunity by drone stikes in Pakistan which also feed extremist Islam and anti-American hatred? Going after man on the nebulous claim that leaking intelligence may have killed some people just seems absurd given what some of the secrets revealed talk about, that the US government ignored widespread claims of torture for example.

I don't like him, I think he is an arse and I agree he lacks judgement. I strongly doubt he would be extradited from Sweden to America, their legal system is one of the most impartial and transparent in the world. But at the same time I can understand why people would be worried about that possibility.

Really the best thing our guvmint could do would be to just let Ecuador take him and let the whole issue die and actually put on trial the person who DID commit treason against the US (as Assange did not, not being an American and not actually stealing any intelligence himself).

[DrLove42]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5b2br7vvBU

Sean Lock is a Leg-End. Assange is a bit of a tool.

[Denzark]

But did anyone actually die? Was anyone hurt? Are those that are hurt by these intelligence leaks lives worth more than the hundreds of people killed with impunity by drone stikes in Pakistan which also feed extremist Islam and anti-American hatred? Going after man on the nebulous claim that leaking intelligence may have killed some people just seems absurd given what some of the secrets revealed talk about, that the US government ignored widespread claims of torture for example.

I don't like him, I think he is an arse and I agree he lacks judgement. I strongly doubt he would be extradited from Sweden to America, their legal system is one of the most impartial and transparent in the world. But at the same time I can understand why people would be worried about that possibility.

Really the best thing our guvmint could do would be to just let Ecuador take him and let the whole issue die and actually put on trial the person who DID commit treason against the US (as Assange did not, not being an American and not actually stealing any intelligence himself).

EG please - I hope you are playing Devil's Advocate here.

Even if drone strikes were wrong (they're not) 2 wrongs don't make a right. Funnily enough the service personnel and sy agencies who keep our (admittedly imperfect) form of democracy safe, ought to be able to operate in safety - all are highly accountable to the legislature and consipracies and black budgets are the stuff off Hollywood.

Even if they weren't, would you like to be under an international Caliphate, forced to wear a burka and stoned to death just for taking the young buck of your fancy to your boudoir outside of marriage...?

[eldargal]

I'm not playing Devils Advocate, I think Assange is an arse but I find the arguments against him quite flawed. I don't trust governments and believe they need things like this to happen to keep them in line.

I'm not saying drone strikes are wrong, I'm just saying lets keep things in perspective. All he did was publish somestuff, he didn't steal it, he didn't conduct espionage, he was given some stuff. Wikileaks has hardly lost the war nor has anyone made a convincing demonstration that lives have been lost because of it.

The point is the entire thing is a complete waste of time. He won't be extradited to the US from Sweden any more easily than he would from here, the whole thing is his ego and people acting like he is at all important just feeds it.

The caliphate thing is nonsense though, the only gains radical islamists have made since 2001 have, ironically, been in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will never happen because most Muslims few the pan-Islamists the same way we view radical American evangelists.

[Wildeybeast]

I say leave him there. Keep the press away. Shut down communications in and out of the embassy. Leave him with no voice until he surrenders himself. Make it painfully obvious he is not getting out of the country and simply ignore his antics. Eventually the Ecuadorians will get sick and tired of him. Force them to hand him over with an official apology, otherwise they can feed him, clothe him and otherwise "enjoy" his company forever.

This was my thought originally, but we currently have police officers guarding the front and back of the embassy to arrest him if he sneaks out, which is a valuable waste of their time and tax payers money. We need him gone and the sooner the better, though sadly waiting him out in the embassy does look like the best option at the moment.


He is an arse. I understand the worry about sending him back to the US to be executed over airing their dirty little secrets, but that would be easier to do here than in Sweden. It's just silly.

The issue is extradition works on first come, first served basis. Whilst there is an outstanding extradition order from Sweden, the US (or any other country) cannot put in a request to extradite him from Britain or anywhere else in the world. So long as he avoids being sent to Sweden, he is perfectly safe from ever being sent to the US (unless they 'render' him which they won't because he's too high profile). Once he's there and has been through what ever possible criminal process the Swede's deem he needs to face, the US can put out an extradition request to Sweden or wherever else he runs off to.


But did anyone actually die? Was anyone hurt? Are those that are hurt by these intelligence leaks lives worth more than the hundreds of people killed with impunity by drone stikes in Pakistan which also feed extremist Islam and anti-American hatred? Going after man on the nebulous claim that leaking intelligence may have killed some people just seems absurd given what some of the secrets revealed talk about, that the US government ignored widespread claims of torture for example.

I don't like him, I think he is an arse and I agree he lacks judgement. I strongly doubt he would be extradited from Sweden to America, their legal system is one of the most impartial and transparent in the world. But at the same time I can understand why people would be worried about that possibility.

Really the best thing our guvmint could do would be to just let Ecuador take him and let the whole issue die and actually put on trial the person who DID commit treason against the US (as Assange did not, not being an American and not actually stealing any intelligence himself).

The point about whether his crimes actually hurt anyone are irrelevant, he is an intelligent man who fully understood the possible ramifications of his actions (both for himself and for others) and he went ahead and did them anyway. If I try to kill you but then botch it and don't actually harm you, I have still broken the law and can reasonably expect to face punishment. He knew he faced the possibility of the death penalty (which he won't get because that would turn him into a martyr and be terrible PR for the US) and went ahead and broke that law anyway. Just because he doesn't agree with that law is irrelevant. Different countries have different laws, and since they are made by a democratically elected government in the case of the US, those laws are perfectly legitimate and the US authorities are entitled to enforce them.

As for sending him to Ecuador, this is far from the best thing to do. We have legal obligation to extradite him to Sweden, and if he is guilty of sexual assault, a moral one too. Furthermore he has skipped bail in this country, which makes him a criminal here, and what does it say about our legal system and moral integrity as a nation if we just allow a criminal to walk out of our country simply because he is famous? Ecuadors granting him political asylum is illegitimate as the US has not currently laid any charges against him or indicated it intends to do so, he is facing extradition on criminal charges, not political ones. There is also the currently rather important principle that freedom of the press does not grant you immunity from prosecution, nor a license to do what you will.

[eldargal]

Yes but he didn't try to kill anyone, he just published documents that were given to him. The whole fuss about Assange is driven by three things; his ego, his supporters lunacy and some Americans bloodlust because he embaressed their sack of sh*t guvmint. Whatever he did it is no worse than the things our governments have been doing and all we're doing is continuing to make him look like a martyr.

[Psychosplodge]

Without redacting names locations dates, which could have still embarrassed governments but protected individuals.

[eldargal]

Which is reprehensible.

All I'm trying to say is this whole thing has been blown out of proportion by both sides and is frankly ridiculous.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I think whatever I say here will cause mass rioting. So I'm going to stay schtum.

[Denzark]

The stuff that would possibly get Assange the Chair in the States, is not just the embarrassing diplograms where their man in bongo-bongo land tells the State Department the local head of state is a despot with poor personal hygiene and a prediliction for underage boys.

It was the stuff pertaining to operational security which could endanger the lives of military personnel, which will get him some sort of treason or 'giving aid/comfort to the enemy' sort of charge.

The issue that he didn't steal it and just published it, is irrelevant. It is still the effect he has contributed to - he is an accessory if you like.

[Wildeybeast]

Yes but he didn't try to kill anyone, he just published documents that were given to him. The whole fuss about Assange is driven by three things; his ego, his supporters lunacy and some Americans bloodlust because he embaressed their sack of sh*t guvmint. Whatever he did it is no worse than the things our governments have been doing and all we're doing is continuing to make him look like a martyr.

No, but he must have realised that some of what he was leaking could get people killed. I see little distinction between the man that pulls the trigger and the man who orders him to do so.

Currently the US bloodlust exists only in Assange's paranoid head and those of his deranged supporters, they have made no threats of any kind against him. Furthermore, any intentions the US do have against him are none of our concern. The only pertinent facts at the moment are that he is hiding from Swedish justice, masking this with protestations of imagined political persecution, making a mockery of our justice system and causing a diplomatic incident between ourselves and Ecuador. It's been blown out of all proportions by him and his supporters, which is why I was ranting about wanting the odious little man out of our country and where he should be (facing the Swedish legal system) as soon as possible

[eldargal]

Certainly there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the US government is really after him. But there are enough right wing lunatics on US television calling for his head to justifiably concern anyone even if most of it is his own ego. That's what I meant about it being blown out of proportion.

You don't see any distinction between Assange and the person pulling the trigger, I don't see any distinction between the governments putting those people in danger in the first place and the person pulling the trigger. Maybe Assange put peoples lives at risk, but so did our governments by torturing (which doesn't work by the way, evne the CIA know that) and blowing up weddings.

[Psychosplodge]

If you read a book called (I think) Apache dawn, the blowing up weddings thing is a outcome through training and flying doctrine differences between our and US pilots.

[eldargal]

Soo, ours are better?:p

[Psychosplodge]

Considerably better trained. Less trigger happy.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Soo, ours are better?:p


Pfft! Of course! Have you seen me on Battlefield 3? *shifty eyes*

[eldargal]

Actually reminds me of what one of my fathers chums said about the counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq (he advised the guvminton it in some capacity). We learnt in Northern Ireland that when fired upon, opening up with heavy calibre machine guns and killing everyone in a half block radius tended to irritate the populace somewhat. So we stopped. We didn't do it in Iraq, either (at least so he said). We were quite popular amongst the locals. Guess which superpower thought they knew better and continued to use heavy calibre machine guns in built up urban environments and were consequently loathed by the populace, prolonging the insurgency and generally making it difficult for themselves?

See, America, we ruled a third of the bloody earth two two centuries. We know how this sh*t works. You're enthusiastic amateurs with lots of money, you want it done properly, ask us how to do it. :p

[DrLove42]

Correction - We ruled a third of the earth for 2 centuries without Tanks, Aircraft, Modern Aircraft or Electricity.

None of these fancy toys that the US need...

[eldargal]

Yup. I think the problem is that Americans are basically nice people. They genuinely wanted to be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and just couldn't cope when it didn't happen. We, on the other hand, are utter barstuds and hold everyone in contempt. Even ourselves. The result, the worlds greatest empire builders since the Romans.:rolleyes:

[Psychosplodge]

It's so nice to find a forum not populated by empire apologists...

[eldargal]

See of all the things Britain has to apologise for I rate Big Brother far higher than the Empire.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

The Empire was glorious! Why should we apologise for being good at conquest?

[Psychosplodge]

See of all the things Britain has to apologise for I rate Big Brother far higher than the Empire.

You mean 1984 style? cause I think the TV program is originally dutch.

[eldargal]

I'm thinking more of Peter Bazalgette taking the concept and popularising it accross the world. Great grandson of one of our greatest engineers too.

[Psychosplodge]

lol quote on his wiki


done more to debase television over the past decade than anyone else

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Well apparently I'm in some form related to Stephenson. :p

[Psychosplodge]

So it's your family's fault...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

What? Trains?
Indefinitely. :D

[Wildeybeast]

Certainly there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the US government is really after him. But there are enough right wing lunatics on US television calling for his head to justifiably concern anyone even if most of it is his own ego. That's what I meant about it being blown out of proportion.

You don't see any distinction between Assange and the person pulling the trigger, I don't see any distinction between the governments putting those people in danger in the first place and the person pulling the trigger. Maybe Assange put peoples lives at risk, but so did our governments by torturing (which doesn't work by the way, evne the CIA know that) and blowing up weddings.

A fair point, all those responsible should be held accountable, but certainly not by Julian Assange.




See, America, we ruled a third of the bloody earth two two centuries. We know how this sh*t works. You're enthusiastic amateurs with lots of money, you want it done properly, ask us how to do it. :p

They didn't want it done properly, they wanted it done as quickly and cheaply as possible, which is why, like all cowboy builders, they made a massive mess of it and left it worst than it was before.


The Empire was glorious! Why should we apologise for being good at conquest?

The Empire did more than it's fair share of native exploitation, but like the Romans it also bought a lot of benefits for those living under it's control. And it's not like many of them have exactly prospered since we gave them rule of their countries back.

[Mr Mystery]

A fair point, all those responsible should be held accountable, but certainly not by Julian Assange.



They didn't want it done properly, they wanted it done as quickly and cheaply as possible, which is why, like all cowboy builders, they made a massive mess of it and left it worst than it was before.



The Empire did more than it's fair share of native exploitation, but like the Romans it also bought a lot of benefits for those living under it's control. And it's not like many of them have exactly prospered since we gave them rule of their countries back.

And what have the Romans ever done for us?? (sorry, couldn't resist. Plus it's all getting a smidge serious over an egotistical bellend who looked like Mr Humpries on his stupid balcony)

[Grailkeeper]

Haven't been following the thread, but I once met Julian assange (very briefly). He wasn't very nice.


Edit: you can't really tell from the pics (or maybe you can) but his main feature in real life is he is very strikingly tall- 6'6 if not more.

[Mr Mystery]

He strikes me as the potential result of firing Arnold Judas Rimmer and John 'Mr Humphries' Inman in opposite directions on the Large Hadron Collider....

[DarkLink]

I'm frankly disappointed in Eldargal's position. I expected better from her.

There are two extremes here, one of total transparency (and transparency is absolutely vital for a free government) and one of secrecy to protect those risking their lives for our sake. Both are vital, but complete transparent and complete secrecy are mutually exclusive. Any rational individual should understand a balance must be kept.

I fully encourage transparency, something Obama has not done in practice. Obama has punished more whistleblowers than all previous presidents in history combined, and there are some things that should absolutely be exposed. Assage, however, included all the documents that could have, and likely did, get people killed, both members of the military and intelligence communities as well as many foreigners working with our government.

[Wildeybeast]

He strikes me as the potential result of firing Arnold Judas Rimmer and John 'Mr Humphries' Inman in opposite directions on the Large Hadron Collider....

Ha ha! Those pictures are brilliant.

[eldargal]

DarkLink, it is about perspective. Maybe Assange got some people killed. But our governments institutionalsied torture, which doesn't work, and lied about it. They knew they were killing scores of civilians in Pakistan and other countries with drone strikes, and lied about. This sort of hypocrisy led to the leak to Assange in the first place and is far more damaging to our efforts in the MidEast than Assange publishing proof of what most of the Islamic world already suspected.

I can't feel particularly worked up about Assange possible getting people killed when our governments have been responsible for far, far more deaths though sheer incompetence and they are never held to account.

I'm note defending Assange, I'm just pointing out it is somewhat hypocritical to try and turn him into some kind of boogieman and it only feeds his ego and paranoia and that of his followers who have blownthis thing out of all proportion in the first place.

[DarkLink]

I see what you're saying. I think we're talking about slightly different things.

Let's say we've got Mohammed Doe, who gives us some intel to some Army SF that helps them track down a terrorist leader. Wikileaks finds those documents, leaks them, and Mohammed gets his head chopped off on the internet.

Then we've got your example, of abuse of prisoners. The leak here is obviously a good thing.

Let's say we've got our diplomats arguing with Iran over nukes. One stupid aide makes a vaguely anti-muslim remark, something a Westerner would find socially acceptable (more or less). Iran finds out because of Wikileaks, and they threaten to nuke the Infidel. Again. Once they eventually get around to building the nukes they claim not to be building.



There's absolutely a line to be drawn. But the person drawing that line has to be very careful about where it is drawn. Assange is not capable of that. Not that he's really a threat anymore, or even that he was a big threat to begin with. But my point isn't really about Assange. He can rot in some embassy freaking out over extradition just as miserably as he could rot in prison. I'm just saying that sometimes, secrecy is absolutely, genuinely, important.


On another note, secrecy doesn't have to last forever. When we killed Osama, Obama was immediately on the air. Not that I'll denigrate him for making the call, but if he had just waited even a couple of days, the military intelligence community could have acted on all of that operational intelligence they gathered. But Obama went on air, and al Quaeda would have immediately taken steps to mitigate the intelligence damage done by the raid, preventing us from taking advantage of our new-found intel. Either Obama felt his re-election was more important, or he lacked the discipline to make the smart call.




And not only has Obama authorized all of those drone strikes (which "officially" haven't killed any civilians), but he's actually targeted American citizens without trial. Not that these individuals would have had much of a trial, they were openly members of various terrorist organizations, but we have the Justice Department to deal with citizen's crimes for a reason. One more reason I don't like Obama.

[eldargal]

Do you remember those Iranian opposition riots from a couple of years ago? That film of a shot female protestor dying went all over the internet and Obama even gave a press conference about it. On that same day (as the press conference) a drone strike in Pakistan killed dozens and dozens of civilians. I don't have any time for Obamas hypocrisy either, it is precisely why I think making a fuss over Assange is so silly.

What you say about Assange is precisely why I don't feel the need to pursue him particularly vigorously. He isn't a threat anymore, and what damage he did do is mostly hypothetical. If he was responsible for lives lost it still pales in comparison to the mistakes our military/guvmint makes every week. Every time we blow up a wedding or party in Pakistan or Afghanistan we infringe uponthe sovereigtny of their government, make them look weak and make ourselves even more unpopular, feeding radical Islam in the process.

This can be quite objectively proven to have happened, whereas whatever Assange may have been responsible for is much more nebulous. He can't be charged with espionage as he didn't steal the documents and he can't be charged with treason as he isn't a US citizen. He would no doubt claim protection under freedom of the press laws for disclosing information received. Send him to Sweden, send him to Ecuador, but let's stop feeding his ego.

[Psychosplodge]

And what have the Romans ever done for us?? (sorry, couldn't resist. Plus it's all getting a smidge serious over an egotistical bellend who looked like Mr Humpries on his stupid balcony)

The aquaduct? (http://youtu.be/ExWfh6sGyso)


He strikes me as the potential result of firing Arnold Judas Rimmer and John 'Mr Humphries' Inman in opposite directions on the Large Hadron Collider....

Nah, theres no charge on A Rimmer, or an Inman...

[Wildeybeast]

. But our governments institutionalsied torture, which doesn't work, and lied about it.


I don't know about the Yanks, but I'm pretty sure that calling the odd isolated incident (which is usually grunts on the ground having 'fun') institutionalised torture by the British government is stretching it somewhat.


What you say about Assange is precisely why I don't feel the need to pursue him particularly vigorously. He isn't a threat anymore, and what damage he did do is mostly hypothetical.

He needs to be pursued as vigorously as any other criminal, if we make a special case for him we might as well give up on the notion of justice altogether. The only way our legal system can work is if no one is beyond it.

[eldargal]

Well yes, we are culpable to some extent because in some cases we gave suspects to the Americans and were involved in various ways and knew it was going on and lied about it.

That is my point, no special treatment. Storming an embassy or consulate is hardly run of the mill, tohugh I don't think we will do that.

[Wildeybeast]

Agreed, the revoking embassy status rule was only really meant for things like Iranian embassy siege and when people who murder police officers hide in them. The best option is to leave the tosser in there and see how long it is before the Ecuadorians get bored and kick him out.

[Denzark]

DarkLink, it is about perspective. Maybe Assange got some people killed. But our governments institutionalsied torture, which doesn't work, and lied about it. They knew they were killing scores of civilians in Pakistan and other countries with drone strikes, and lied about. This sort of hypocrisy led to the leak to Assange in the first place and is far more damaging to our efforts in the MidEast than Assange publishing proof of what most of the Islamic world already suspected.

I can't feel particularly worked up about Assange possible getting people killed when our governments have been responsible for far, far more deaths though sheer incompetence and they are never held to account.

I'm note defending Assange, I'm just pointing out it is somewhat hypocritical to try and turn him into some kind of boogieman and it only feeds his ego and paranoia and that of his followers who have blownthis thing out of all proportion in the first place.

As before EG, 2 wrongs don't make a right. I can't get particulalrly worked up about civvies getting killed in foreign countries, nor any hypocrisy on the part of government.

The difference is that the offence that I think you would like to see our governments punished for is the killing of innocent civilians. The offence I would like to see Assange punished for is release of information that puts our armed forces and security services at risk or actually in harms way. The 2 don't cancel each other out, its just that the former is done in accordance with the laws of our land, the latter is done against the lawas of our land (or in that case the states.)

Just because he didn't steal the goods doesn't free him of an espionage charge - its not some fencing of stolen goods. He passed on information he knew to be classified to an enemy organisation/country. that is the offence.

[eldargal]

Our governments put them at risk in teh first place. This isn't about two wrongs, it is about perspective and hypocrisy. We are going after the person who maybe put some of our lives at risk over the people who are risking the entire venture through incompetence and certainly are costing lives on both sides.

[DarkLink]

What you say about Assange is precisely why I don't feel the need to pursue him particularly vigorously. He isn't a threat anymore, and what damage he did do is mostly hypothetical. If he was responsible for lives lost it still pales in comparison to the mistakes our military/guvmint makes every week. Every time we blow up a wedding or party in Pakistan or Afghanistan we infringe uponthe sovereigtny of their government, make them look weak and make ourselves even more unpopular, feeding radical Islam in the process.

But this is America. We started two of the longest wars in our history, just to get Osama. Though, really, Iraq was about planting democracy, and trying to trigger an Arab Spring style spread of democracy. It kinda worked.



I don't know about the Yanks, but I'm pretty sure that calling the odd isolated incident (which is usually grunts on the ground having 'fun') institutionalised torture by the British government is stretching it somewhat.

Kind of. Policy within the intelligence community was a little borderline, and it didn't take much to push the guards over the edge.

[Denzark]

Our governments put them at risk in teh first place. This isn't about two wrongs, it is about perspective and hypocrisy. We are going after the person who maybe put some of our lives at risk over the people who are risking the entire venture through incompetence and certainly are costing lives on both sides.

For shizzle? I thought the law of our democratic country, which agreed a legally binding extradition treaty with another sovereign state in the EU, wanted to meet the terms of that, and send Assange there to answer in a court of law, allegations of rape.

[Kyban]

For shizzle? I thought the law of our democratic country, which agreed a legally binding extradition treaty with another sovereign state in the EU, wanted to meet the terms of that, and send Assange there to answer in a court of law, allegations of rape.

Yeah, but the whole thing got blown out of proportion because he thinks he'll get politically prosecuted and sent to the US or something.

[Denzark]

I know his alleged issues - I am engaged in debate with EG here.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, we're gonna prosecute the **** out of him:rolleyes:. Right after we get done with Bradley Manning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning), who's actually a US citizen and soldier, and who's barely even gotten into trial so far.

Let Assange leave the embassy. There's ample time to pick him up at some point once he's come out of his hole, and he's not a big priority any more.

[eldargal]

That isn't what I have a problem with. What I'm referring to is the fact our government actually considered raiding the damned embassy to get him. So we are willing to throw out centuries of diplomatic convention that is the bedrock ofcivilised discourse between nations to get some ****er just to send him back to Sweden to face rape charges? It is ridiculous. I don't have a problem with extraditing him, but can you blame his supporters for thinking there is more to it under these circumstances? If this were anyone but Assange there is no way we would be considering raiding an embassy to get them. Whatever Assange did, be it rape or publishing sensitive documents unwisely, he doesn't deserve all this fuss. That is what I have a problem with, and justifying it on the basis that he may be got people killed is frankly ridiculous in the context of how many people have died in these wars.


For shizzle? I thought the law of our democratic country, which agreed a legally binding extradition treaty with another sovereign state in the EU, wanted to meet the terms of that, and send Assange there to answer in a court of law, allegations of rape.

What DarkLink said. Manning is the one who arguably commited treason, let him go to trial first. The person who published the documents is secondary.

[Denzark]

Actually The Foreign Secretary and his US counterpart have pointed out that there is no such 'Diplomatic Asylum' recognised by them, nor in international law.

As to 'Political Asylum', several of the broadsheets have in the last couple of days, published both articles and letters from legal proffessionals, that the international law under which Ecuador thinks they are granting asylum, does not apply to those accused of pure crime as opposed to political crimes. Assange is in this category - the laws governing asylum should not be applied to bail breakers. Arguably we could pick him up on that basis, I don't see why we haven't.

Why should we respect Ecuador in accordance with international law (to which several elarned people as above, have claimed should be applied in this case) if they are trying to run roughshod over our laws?

Particularly as their president seems to be a typical tinpot second world dictator with no respect for freedom of speech in his own country.

[eldargal]

Countries do not raid other countries embassies except in the most extreme circumstances. This is not extreme, unless of course you believe that the US wants to shove him in a show trial and execute him. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I mean between all the right wing lunatics on US television calling for him to be assassinated/executed and the guvmint threatening to raid an embassy is it any wonder he and hie supporters don't want him sent to Sweden?

Also if our governments really did make that statement, perhaps they should read Article 22 of the Vienna convention which expressly states that an embassy can only be entered by permission. Remember an embassy is not part of Britain anymore, it is foreign soil. The Ecuadorian ambassy is under international law part of Ecuador.

The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolate and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property. Article 30 extends this provision to the private residence of the diplomats.
From the treaty text itself (http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf). An attack on an embassy can be regarded as an act of war. So we are threatening war over an alleged rapist. Anyone who seriously thinks this is reasonable is delusional.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Countries do not raid other countries embassies except in the most extreme circumstances.

The Iron Islands disagree.

WE DO NOT SOW.

[Psychosplodge]

Pick one, viking or fictional wannabe viking, don't cross the streams...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I am a Viking, they are the fake ones.

I was merely saying their words, plus, the Greyjoys are more like Warhammer Dark Elves.

[Denzark]

Countries do not raid other countries embassies except in the most extreme circumstances. This is not extreme, unless of course you believe that the US wants to shove him in a show trial and execute him. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I mean between all the right wing lunatics on US television calling for him to be assassinated/executed and the guvmint threatening to raid an embassy is it any wonder he and hie supporters don't want him sent to Sweden?

Also if our governments really did make that statement, perhaps they should read Article 22 of the Vienna convention which expressly states that an embassy can only be entered by permission. Remember an embassy is not part of Britain anymore, it is foreign soil. The Ecuadorian ambassy is under international law part of Ecuador.

From the treaty text itself (http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf). An attack on an embassy can be regarded as an act of war. So we are threatening war over an alleged rapist. Anyone who seriously thinks this is reasonable is delusional.

Ah the Vienna Convention, thats the kiddy. Thats the badger which prevents the granting of asylum to contravene outstanding criminal cases. Whilst the risk to life (from onward extradition) may be of note, there is no outstanding extradition request so Ecuador can't claim this.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

BANANAHAMMOCKS.

That is all.

[eldargal]

Which still doesn't allow a host nation to raid the embassy. I'm not for a moment saying Ecuador should give him asylum (I don't give a damn), what I object to is the ridiculous way this is being handled by our government.

The Swedes don't even want him extradited to charge him, they just want to question him. So that totally warrants commiting an act of war and tying the whole thing up in the international courts for years at great cost to the taxpayer.:rolleyes:

So let's put this in perspective:

We are offering to commit an act unprecedented in the modern era and not even commited by the Soviets or National Socialists and could be construed as an act of war because Ecuador gave political asylum depite it being innappropriate because Sweden want to question him over some alleged sexual misdemeanours but they won't question him in London.

Incidentally Ecuador offered to let the Swedish authorities question him in their embassy.

Edit: Perhaps I'm not explaining why I feel so strongly about the embassy thing. If we, a free, developed nation, raid an foreign embassy under our protection for any reason, we set a precedent other nations can follow. You could have Chine raiding embassies to recover dissidents, for example. Every brutal foreign regime that has avoided having its diplomats expelled could abuse this precedent for the detriment of all. It also puts our own diplomats in foreign countries with less than stellar human rights records in a position where they culd find themselves being raided and perhaps even being question or having documents seized on the flimsiest grounds. Raiding the embassy would be something unprecedented in the modern era and have immense repercussions to the way countries conduct international relations.

[Denzark]

I fully understand the matter of reciprocity - It why whe can't shoot POWs (including detained Taliban) out of hand.

However the Vienna accords which make the Embassy sacrosanct, prevent asylum being given, to an individual in Assange's status.

And, he has broken bail so I should be allowed to smash him in the face with a pepper spray a la Dog the Bounty Hunter, before hauling him to the nearest nick and claiming $10000 and giving him a lecture on morality, calling him 'Brah'.

Anyone want to come along as my unfeasibly mammarily proportioned wife, Beth if I remember her name?

I reckon TDA would look good in a blonde wig...

[Psychosplodge]

Lol TDA in a blonde wig...

I can't volunteer my services, my moobs aren't unbelievably proportioned enough yet...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Hold the phone.

Me in a blonde wig? You don't even know what I look like!
Where'd the blonde wig come from?

[Denzark]

You get to play Beth to my Dog.

Now, what night is Mummys and Daddys in our house?

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I am full of confuse.
VHAT IS THIS?

[Psychosplodge]

Hold the phone.

Me in a blonde wig? You don't even know what I look like!
Where'd the blonde wig come from?

Everybody looks silly in a blonde wig...even blondes...

[eldargal]

The appropriate measure is to put diplomatic pressure on them and negotiate to get him out. Not threaten to raid the embassy and escalate the thing ridiculously. I mean is it really in anyones interest but Assanges to have the whole thing tangled up in the international courts for years while they sort it all out?

There is also the amusing fact that the US has in the not too distant past claimed diplomatic immunity for an American who murdered two men in Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident). This was claimed under the Vienna Conventions. So good enough for an American CIA contractor but not, apparently, for Julian Assange.

I fully understand the matter of reciprocity - It why whe can't shoot POWs (including detained Taliban) out of hand.

However the Vienna accords which make the Embassy sacrosanct, prevent asylum being given, to an individual in Assange's status.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Suddenly, SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE.

[Denzark]

The appropriate measure is to put diplomatic pressure on them and negotiate to get him out. Not threaten to raid the embassy and escalate the thing ridiculously. I mean is it really in anyones interest but Assanges to have the whole thing tangled up in the international courts for years while they sort it all out?

There is also the amusing fact that the US has in the not too distant past claimed diplomatic immunity for an American who murdered two men in Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident). This was claimed under the Vienna Conventions. So good enough for an American CIA contractor but not, apparently, for Julian Assange.

Firstly, the supposed 'threat' is as far as I see it, Latin American Hyperbole. It wasn't couched 'and 'im over or we'll send in the hooligans' it was merely a statement of the UK that it believes its own laws gave them the ability to go in under some circumstances. A threat for me, would consist of 'do x by timescale y or we'll take action z'. not the case.

Secondly, do you mean diplomatic immunity or political asylum? Becuase if Assange was an accredited Ecuadorian diplomat, as I presume your quoted yank was (for the US), then yes Assange could probably have been looked after legitimately in this fashion. 2 different things.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Diplomatic Immunity (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBsCfZzZEe0)

[eldargal]

Diplmatic hreats are seldom as unsubtle as that, sadly.:)

The point about the American is that Americans claimed the same protections agianst criminal proceedings under the Vienna Conventions that Ecuador is now claiming. It either applies to people with an arrest warrant issued (Assange hs not been charged remember) or it doesn't.

As I've said I'm not saying I support Ecuador in this, I'm just saying this whole thing has escalated ridiculously and all that does is feed Assanges' ego and the conspiracy theories. We should have been quietly but busily negotiating behind the scenes not sending threatening letters.

[Wildeybeast]

That isn't what I have a problem with. What I'm referring to is the fact our government actually considered raiding the damned embassy to get him. So we are willing to throw out centuries of diplomatic convention that is the bedrock ofcivilised discourse between nations to get some ****er just to send him back to Sweden to face rape charges? It is ridiculous. I don't have a problem with extraditing him, but can you blame his supporters for thinking there is more to it under these circumstances? If this were anyone but Assange there is no way we would be considering raiding an embassy to get them. Whatever Assange did, be it rape or publishing sensitive documents unwisely, he doesn't deserve all this fuss. That is what I have a problem with, and justifying it on the basis that he may be got people killed is frankly ridiculous in the context of how many people have died in these wars.

Firstly, it isn't the 'government'. There is no policy on this. Hague cocked up and announced it was a possibility, (probably because he was pissed at the impudence of the Ecuadorians) against the advice of his advisers. He then backtracked the following the day when he realised he'd made the whole thing worse. It was never a realistic option.

Secondly, no one is talking about storming the embassy. There is an act of Parliament which allows us to revoke the status of an embassy, but if I understand correctly that would have to go to a commons vote to be enacted. If that were to happen, it would not be an embassy any more and we could walk in and arrest him same as any other building.

Thirdly, whilst throwing away diplomatic convention may be a bad move it's not much worse than the other options. Option b) is to leave him to rot in there while he continues to make his balcony addresses like a deranged demagogue whilst we waste police time stopping him from leaving and looking after his fanatics outside. Not to mention him making a mockery of our justice system. Option c) is to allow him to go to Ecuador which would have serious ramifications for our relationship with Sweden, not to mention endangering our extradition treaties around the globe. Option b) looks like the best bet, but the government is damned whatever they do in this situation which is not of their making.

[Denzark]

I agree that this has been overblown, although when a child squalls like Assange, it should be slapped into quietness, not ignored.

Hoever, I must respectfully submit the US individual you quoted isn't the same circumstance. The immunity that the US (spuriously I admit this burnt spook looks guilty as hell to me) claimed was based on claiming he was diplomatically accredited.

Ecuador cannot possibly use this argument because Assange never has been Ecuadorian nor a member of their diplomatic staffs.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

My attempts to derail this thread are proving fruitless.

*sigh*

TIME TO........ DELIVER THE PIZZA!

[Wildeybeast]

You can keep your pizza, stop derailing my threads!

[eldargal]

It is also important to remember that this whole thing could have been avoided if Sweden just questioned him here. It's not just us being silly about it.

It is a different circumstance but the principle is the same. The US was citing the protections of embassies, we threatened to ignore those same protections. Assange is protected because he is in the embassy and we can't go in, asylum/immunity is actually irrelevent.


Firstly, it isn't the 'government'. There is no policy on this. Hague cocked up and announced it was a possibility, (probably because he was pissed at the impudence of the Ecuadorians) against the advice of his advisers. He then backtracked the following the day when he realised he'd made the whole thing worse. It was never a realistic option.
See my above posts re: overblown silliness. Of course it was never going to happen, hte fact it was talked about is the whole problem with this case. It is all completely overblown.



Thirdly, whilst throwing away diplomatic convention may be a bad move it's not much worse than the other options. Option b) is to leave him to rot in there while he continues to make his balcony addresses like a deranged demagogue whilst we waste police time stopping him from leaving and looking after his fanatics outside. Not to mention him making a mockery of our justice system. Option c) is to allow him to go to Ecuador which would have serious ramifications for our relationship with Sweden, not to mention endangering our extradition treaties around the globe. Option b) looks like the best bet, but the government is damned whatever they do in this situation which is not of their making.
Throwing out centuries of convention and setting a terrible precedent that could be abused by all manner of unsavoury governments is much, much worse than any of the other options. If the Swedes are so cranky about Assange they can sodding well interview him here and then decide whether or not to charge him. Extraditing someone actually charged with a crime has a lot more weight than extraditing someone to question them. Especially when you can question them in London quite easily. Sweden actually did this recently in a murder case with a suspect in Serbia.

This whole situation is ridiculous and unnecessary and feeds into Assanges ego and the conspiracy theories about it. That's what I'm objecting to, not anything to do with Assange either. Both the way it has been handled and the way some people seek to justify it with the Wikileaks business (which is irrelevent to the Swedish situation).

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

But it's just going around in circles!
Did someone lock the Helicopter's piloting stick?

[Wildeybeast]

Throwing out centuries of convention and setting a terrible precedent that could be abused by all manner of unsavoury governments is much, much worse than any of the other options. If the Swedes are so cranky about Assange they can sodding well interview him here and then decide whether or not to charge him. Extraditing someone actually charged with a crime has a lot more weight than extraditing someone to question them. Especially when you can question them in London quite easily. Sweden actually did this recently in a murder case with a suspect in Serbia.

Worse than other countries realising our extradition treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on because we incapable of enforcing them and summarily cancelling them? I disagree. The Swedes coming here to interview him would be pointless as if they do decide to charge him, we still have exactly the same situation where he refuses to go and hides in the embassy. And why should they have to fly over here just because he's an arrogant little **** who thinks he's beyond the law? The whole point of an extradition treaty is precisely so they don't have to do that.

[eldargal]

Yes, much, much worse. The issue with the extradition treaty has nothing to do with us, but with Ecuador granting him asylum. Ecuador has offered to let Sweden question him and examine the issue further if charges are laid against him. They have refused. His arrogance is irrelevent, the whole thing has been mishandled from the beginning.

[Denzark]

My attempts to derail this thread are proving fruitless.

*sigh*

TIME TO........ DELIVER THE PIZZA!

Sorry TDA. Just to cheer you up, a picture of you and me aboutto go and get that bail jumper Assange.

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy257/denzark/Dog-dog-the-bounty-hunter-13317561-245-320.jpg

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Nice boobs luv. :D

[DarkLink]

Time to call in the Batman.

[Wildeybeast]

Yes, much, much worse. The issue with the extradition treaty has nothing to do with us, but with Ecuador granting him asylum. Ecuador has offered to let Sweden question him and examine the issue further if charges are laid against him. They have refused. His arrogance is irrelevent, the whole thing has been mishandled from the beginning.

The extradition treaty has everything to do with us. He has explored every legal avenue available to fight it and has lost. We are obliged to extradite him. Whilst he hides in the embassy, there's not much we can do about it, but if we grant him safe passage out of the country, we will be breaking the extradition treaty and other nations will rightly question just how much value to place in the treaties they hold with us. For saying this hasn't been handled very well by any party, it actually has the potential to get whole lot worse and create a full blown diplomatic incident with a number of nations.

[Wildeybeast]

An interesting article here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19373707). I find the idea that his celebrity status is actually damaging Wikileaks and spooking people from leaking stuff to be both humorous and ironic.