• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Julian Assange will be granted asylum, says official

I know this is probably too much to ask due to how they are forced to operate but I wish they would act more professionally when communicating through social media. Its become an Assange sideshow, something he's personally said is a choice of theirs to deflect attention from others within wikileaks. I've felt far less receptive to the wikileaks message since the Assange circus started and I know a lot of other people feel the same.
 
Britperspective said:
I know this is probably too much to ask due to how they are forced to operate but I wish they would act more professionally when communicating through social media. Its become an Assange sideshow, something he's personally said is a choice of theirs to deflect attention from others within wikileaks. I've felt far less receptive to the wikileaks message since the Assange circus started and I know a lot of other people feel the same.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, Mr Assange is a bit of ego centrist..
 
Redress said:
Why would they drop charges? He (allegedly) broke the ****ing law. He deserves to never be a free man again. What he (allegedly) did cannot be allowed to go unpunished. People have to know that leaking classified information will end your time as a free person.
Click to expand...

No sensible person gives rat's ass whether anyone broke US law, considering the US govt. itself has been serial disobeyer of every single law on the books.

As to whether Manning will be freed, much of it depends on the performance of his legal team, which is supposedly top notch. The last time the US tried to throw a soldier in jail for doing something noble--the case of Ehren Watada--the US govt. ended up losing against a powerful legal team (Watada is now a free man due the govt. being forced to drop the charges).

However, the legal avenue is only one mechanism for getting someone freed from prison or getting the US govt. to drop charges. There is also the Barbour technique, named after an infamous former governor of the most backward, corrupt state in the US.
 
The big question is why the UK hasn't arrested Assange yet. The law and/or international treaties have never been an impediment to Western governments friendly to the US, so there must be another reason.
 
Personally I would love it if Assaunge did get brought to the US. Not because I think that he would be convicted, but quite the opposite. He would be exonerated.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now I know that some people do not want to consider wikileaks as "the press" but guess what...it is, whether you like it or not. At best Assuange would be guilty of libel. And that charge has already flown the coop since our government has already admitted that those leaks were genuine.

As for the Swedish charges, even those women admitted that the sex was consensual. Hell, at least one of them made breakfast and paid for his ticket back iirc.

As for Manning, yeah he should be in prison as what he did WAS wrong.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Personally I would love it if Assaunge did get brought to the US. Not because I think that he would be convicted, but quite the opposite. He would be exonerated.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now I know that some people do not want to consider wikileaks as "the press" but guess what...it is, whether you like it or not. At best Assuange would be guilty of libel. And that charge has already flown the coop since our government has already admitted that those leaks were genuine.

As for the Swedish charges, even those women admitted that the sex was consensual. Hell, at least one of them made breakfast and paid for his ticket back iirc.

As for Manning, yeah he should be in prison as what he did WAS wrong.
Click to expand...

The US military is a joke. It wouldn't matter whether "secret" information about it or its operations were revealed. Either way, it's incompetent bloated butt will be kicked out of Afghanistan.

Then hopefully, taxpayers can get some sleep :rolleyes:
 
PeteEU said:
So when are the people who actually killed people going to be arrested? After Wikileaks did expose quite a few murders.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that any of those peoplel killed were Americans, and it's really not murder to kill an animal.
 
What's totally mind-boggling is why the British govt. hasn't simply invaded the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest him. Doesn't make sense as to why it has anything to fear from a Third World hole like Mississippi, uh, I mean Ecuador.

Only logical explanation is that Assange, in fact, is not simply being holed up in the embassy as the media reports, but is already on a flight to Ecuador. Among the leaks already released (in encrypted form) is compromising information on affluent connected individuals, and Assange probably told the British govt. about that material--enough to be credible, effectively issuing a powerful threat against any hostile action taken against him.

However, the British govt. has to, of course, save face, and not appear like a bunch of weak schmucks in front of the whole world. Of course, even with the story it's released about the UK police forces being afraid of Ecuador, it's already done that :)
 
It appears now to be official (breaking news banner on U.K. edition of Huffington Post)--Ecuador has granted asylum.
 
Redress said:
Why would they drop charges? He (allegedly) broke the ****ing law. He deserves to never be a free man again. What he (allegedly) did cannot be allowed to go unpunished. People have to know that leaking classified information will end your time as a free person.
Click to expand...

So we should hold him for years without being charged (against the law), and subject him to psychological and physical tortures (against the law) to punish him for breaking the law....
 
solletica said:
What's totally mind-boggling is why the British govt. hasn't simply invaded the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest him. Doesn't make sense as to why it has anything to fear from a Third World hole like Mississippi, uh, I mean Ecuador.

Only logical explanation is that Assange, in fact, is not simply being holed up in the embassy as the media reports, but is already on a flight to Ecuador. Among the leaks already released (in encrypted form) is compromising information on affluent connected individuals, and Assange probably told the British govt. about that material--enough to be credible, effectively issuing a powerful threat against any hostile action taken against him.

However, the British govt. has to, of course, save face, and not appear like a bunch of weak schmucks in front of the whole world. Of course, even with the story it's released about the UK police forces being afraid of Ecuador, it's already done that :)
Click to expand...

They cannot due to treaty agreements. The embassy grounds are considered Ecuadorian territory by treaty. If they did invade then it would be just like invading the country itself and would be considered an act of war. Do you really want ANOTHER war going on?
 
solletica said:
The US military is a joke. It wouldn't matter whether "secret" information about it or its operations were revealed. Either way, it's incompetent bloated butt will be kicked out of Afghanistan.

Then hopefully, taxpayers can get some sleep :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The US military could kick any one countries butt....we might have trouble with China but only because they have the numbers on their side...we have the technology.
 
Redress said:
Why would they drop charges? He (allegedly) broke the ****ing law. He deserves to never be a free man again. What he (allegedly) did cannot be allowed to go unpunished. People have to know that leaking classified information will end your time as a free person.
Click to expand...

True he broke the law, but why did he do it? People were killed and it was covered up. He revealed the cover up.
 
Kal'Stang said:
They cannot due to treaty agreements. The embassy grounds are considered Ecuadorian territory by treaty. If they did invade then it would be just like invading the country itself and would be considered an act of war. Do you really want ANOTHER war going on?
Click to expand...

The British armed forces could make short work of Ecuador, so that war is a non-issue.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The US military could kick any one countries butt....we might have trouble with China but only because they have the numbers on their side...we have the technology.
Click to expand...

China also has our technology. It stole it.
 
solletica said:
The British armed forces could make short work of Ecuador, so that war is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

Not really.. they dont have the means to get there any more. Remember they mothballed their air craft carriers and dont have any bombers at all. So unless the US or another "friendly" country would be willing to give them a staging area, then it is a no go. Plus you forget that if the UK does go into the embassy after him, then every single UK embassy in the world plus their diplomats are at danger.
 
PeteEU said:
Not really.. they dont have the means to get there any more. Remember they mothballed their air craft carriers and dont have any bombers at all.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant. Ecuador has no means to military retaliate against the UK, so the UK has no incentive to respect Ecuadorian sovereignty in the embassy.

PeteEU said:
So unless the US or another "friendly" country would be willing to give them a staging area, then it is a no go. Plus you forget that if the UK does go into the embassy after him, then every single UK embassy in the world plus their diplomats are at danger.
Click to expand...

I doubt every other country's regime would risk the consequences of embassy invasion simply because the UK had a dispute w/Ecuador.

The more credible explanation is that the UK is not invading the embassy because Assange has some powerful counterthreat up his sleeve.

The US and UK are notorious for routinely violating territorial sovereignty and blatantly ignoring international laws and treaties, so the idea that a treaty would stop an embassy invasion is absurd.
 
Kal'Stang said:
solletica said:
What's totally mind-boggling is why the British govt. hasn't simply invaded the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest him --
Click to expand...

They cannot due to treaty agreements. The embassy grounds are considered Ecuadorian territory by treaty. If they did invade then it would be just like invading the country itself and would be considered an act of war. Do you really want ANOTHER war going on?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling if there was a "threat" to send police in; it was to force Ecuador's hand and grant Assange asylum and thereby get him off UK soil.

Very few governments - even the powerful ones with nukes would break international treaties and send troops or police onto embassy grounds against the wishes of the embassy country.
 
solletica said:
-- The US and UK are notorious for routinely violating territorial sovereignty and blatantly ignoring international laws and treaties, so the idea that a treaty would stop an embassy invasion is absurd.
Click to expand...

The only time the UK has invaded another country's embassy was when that embassy was taken over by external forces in 1980; I can link to video evidence to back that up.



Can you link to back your claim up please?
 
PeteEU said:
Not really.. they dont have the means to get there any more. Remember they mothballed their air craft carriers and dont have any bombers at all. So unless the US or another "friendly" country would be willing to give them a staging area, then it is a no go. Plus you forget that if the UK does go into the embassy after him, then every single UK embassy in the world plus their diplomats are at danger.
Click to expand...

This whole thing is one of the best examples of why I don't believe America should have foreign embassies or allow them in the United States.
 
Paschendale said:
Good. No one should be locking up journalists for the act of journalism. They provide an all-too-important check on tyrannical abuses of government power. It's ridiculous that Assange has had to go through all of this. Every criticism that was levied at him about the potential dangers of the information he published turned out to be false. No troop positions were endangered. No nation's security was endangered. But overconfident governments discovered that they cannot act with impunity. How is this a bad thing? Why does a socialist have to defend checks on government power by a private citizen to conservatives?
Click to expand...

Well, there is that annoying rape thing in Sweden, but since this scumbag is a leftist hero for embarrassing the United States, you are apparently willing to overlook little things like rape. The hypocrisy of the Far Left has no limits.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I have a feeling if there was a "threat" to send police in; it was to force Ecuador's hand and grant Assange asylum and thereby get him off UK soil.

Very few governments - even the powerful ones with nukes would break international treaties and send troops or police onto embassy grounds against the wishes of the embassy country.
Click to expand...

Just how exactly does this scumbag get to Ecuador?
 
Kal'Stang said:
They cannot due to treaty agreements. The embassy grounds are considered Ecuadorian territory by treaty. If they did invade then it would be just like invading the country itself and would be considered an act of war. Do you really want ANOTHER war going on?
Click to expand...

You mean like we went to war with Iran after they took over the U.S. embassy?

Oh wait.....never mind.
 
So now Ecuador will declare war on the US if it secures their embassy for an internationally wanted man... because that's the same thing as...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom