UK on the verge of committing an act of war...

Post Reply New Topic

I wouldn't say it's a matter of intelligence but a matter of intentions, though the ones who are the most eager to resort to antagonism do tend to be stupid since they can't grasp anything beyond straws. But yeah I've always had respect for his capacity for honesty and critical thinking.

It isn't about crippling the organization, which killing one person is unlikely to do; it is about discouraging people from helping them through literal fear of death. I doubt the US or UK would take credit for his murder, either, that would martyr him. Better for them that he dies at the hands of "some local thug" or even in an "accident" so the only people talking about assassination seem like internet conspiracy kooks. Some in the US government would relish an all-out Anonymous attack to ensure a carte-blanche in responding to it with extreme prejudice

If the US wanted him they could just get him from the UK. No need for Sweden.

I can't stand the guy. He's certainly anti-american and releasing 40 years of classified diplomatic cables from 274 embassies isnt going to make him any friends in the US government. Real journalists tried to redact the names in the various releases and tried to explain to him that he was putting people at risk but he didnt listen. An ethiopian journalist has already had to flee his own country. That's why the NYT wouldnt link to his site even after they cooperated on an article with him.

Assange should get ready for a long stay in that embassy.

They don't have to storm the embassy to get him out. They just expel all the staff as persona non grata for aiding and abetting a fugitive, as international allows. Then turn off the electricity and water and sit back and wait.

If he dies in an accident or at the hands of a local "thug", it will be pretty obvious that the US had a hand in it, just as it is obvious that he never raped anyone in Sweden. That charge is just an excuse to get him to the US. I doubt he was ever in the same room as the two women that he is charged with assaulting. As for Anonymous, they are a wildcard in all of this, no one can really predict what they will do or when they will do it.

There is nothing the US can really charge him with, since he is not within American jurisdiction. So, no, they actually do need Sweden.

Exactly - an embassy's diplomatic status can be lifted to fulfill a legal obligation - in this case, obligations under the Extradition Act.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46

He will not be there long. He will be in the US within the year, if he is lucky. If he is not, he'll be somewhere in Eastern Europe or the Middle East.

I was commenting on the Assange fan theory that Sweden is a waypoint on his way to the US for charges. If the US wanted him, they could have taken him from the UK. They already had him under arrest.

The US has certainly charged foreign nationals with espionage. They couldnt get him for treason but they might try espionage. I don't know if they will. Assange seems to think they will. If they can make it stick, I'd like him sitting in a cell with Manning.

That's the problem with trying to scr*w the United States and then hanging out in Europe afterwards. That's the wrong place to be.

He actually hasn't done anything different than what media organizations do all the time, and even give themselves Pulitzers for. They publish leaked documents whenever they can get their hands on them. The only difference is that Assange isn't part of the media cartel.

and thus does not toe the line.

Ive never known news organization to dump out 40 years of unredacted diplomatic cables and thousands of pages of classified war documents with the names and locations of US sources and allies. He's not writing a specific story. He's just spraying out classified materials provided by a guy being charged with espionage and aiding the enemy.

News orgs tried to explain how to protect the names but Assange didnt want to listen. He even suggested that informants and sources had it coming for working with the US. He has very little empathy for others despite wanting special protection for his own efforts now.

Depends. Having such a high media profile has protected him somewhat this far, and it may continue to do so if he plays his cards right.

If he can make it to Ecuador, he should at least be able to move around in certain countries in South America. Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia would all certainly protect him where possible, and it's possible that countries outside of that would also (if you exclude Colombia, and some others). Ecuador no longer has a U.S. base on it's soil, and it's relations with the U.S are far from good, they have no love of Americans and would certainly go to lengths to keep any American operations off their soil.

People want Manning and Assange in cells for "harming America"? Smh.

I don't see how Assange can be guilty of treason given that he's Australian

Tell that to Gary McKinnon.

I think the original claim is an exaggeration, we haven't threatened to storm the embassy, we just send a badly worded letter in which we cited a law that would allow the storming of the embassy in certain situations. Given we refused to do so when a Libyan diplomat shot a police officer, I doubt we will for Assange.

He should go to Sweden and face the rape charges. It's that or sit in a tiny embassy all his life. He can't go to Ecuador because he'd have to leave the embassy in order to do so- he'd either need to go to an airport (and be arrested once he set foot outside) or try and get to the roof to be winched into a helicopter (but the embassy is only on the ground floor of a seven storey building and he would need to leave the embassy to get to the stairs or lifts, and I'm not sure any helicopter could fly to Ecuador without a stop.)

We didn't refuse - we were prevented by the legislation then in force.
This was changed in 1987 as a result of the shooting of WPC Fletcher by someone inside the Libyan embassy in 1984.

I also think he should go to Sweden and face the rape charges. If he is innocent of them (which I do have doubts about), then he doesn't need to worry about that particular charge. There is a real threat of being extradited to the US from either the UK or Sweden. However, as he can't make it to South America, or stay in the embassy forever, he will have to face that threat at some point. He might as well clear his name in Sweden (if he is innocent). It's not a given that Sweden will extradite him any more than the UK will. Going to Sweden might also give him a better opportunity to claim asylum somewhere else.