08-18-2012, 06:13 AM
Yes to everything Bronte said (thank god you're back, Joan!)
How DARE the UK threaten the sovereignty of another nation? How DARE the UK question the internationally recognised and protected right to political asylum? How DARE the UK pretend that it's "just doing its job", when the whole world knows exactly what will happen when/if Assange gets to Sweden? Sweden has declined to interview Assange on British soil, has not followed due process to determine whether he should even stand trial and has cobbled together a case that is spurious at best in order to pander to the bully boys in red, white and blue. If Assange had not been Assange and this "crime" had been committed, an entirely different set of processes would have been followed which probably would have ended up in the matter being deemed utterly frivolous.
Do I think Assange is a nice man who is completely innocent of any wrongdoing ever in his entire life? No. He's a journalist, for starters. However, it's not possible to ignore the bigger agenda and I'm disgusted with the Australian government, which has offered more support to a bunch of drug smugglers caught in Bali than to a man who faces quite serious penalties if the USA ever gets his hands on him, even though he has not actually broken a US law. One cannot be charged with treason against a nation of which one is not a citizen.
By even suggesting that it's ok to invade the sovereign territory of another nation -- which is what an embassy is -- Britain is making mockery of the right to political asylum as ratified by the Geneva Convention. Ecuador absolutely has the right to decide that under humanitarian grounds it is necessary to aid a man who has sought their protection. The UK has protected those who sought political asylum in the past, despite opposition from their home nations and despite pending "criminal" charges.
The embassy IS hallowed ground, or at least sovereign territory that DOES NOT BELONG TO THE UK. They have no jurisdiction and "invading" the embassy would indeed be an act of war, with the UK (and the US) not having that lovely shield of "liberator" to protect them this time. They would be the aggressors, and if we wanted to look at it in light of international agreements made post-9/11, we'd pretty much be obliged to declare war on the UK on behalf of Ecuador.
So butt the fuck out for a change, England.
How DARE the UK threaten the sovereignty of another nation? How DARE the UK question the internationally recognised and protected right to political asylum? How DARE the UK pretend that it's "just doing its job", when the whole world knows exactly what will happen when/if Assange gets to Sweden? Sweden has declined to interview Assange on British soil, has not followed due process to determine whether he should even stand trial and has cobbled together a case that is spurious at best in order to pander to the bully boys in red, white and blue. If Assange had not been Assange and this "crime" had been committed, an entirely different set of processes would have been followed which probably would have ended up in the matter being deemed utterly frivolous.
Do I think Assange is a nice man who is completely innocent of any wrongdoing ever in his entire life? No. He's a journalist, for starters. However, it's not possible to ignore the bigger agenda and I'm disgusted with the Australian government, which has offered more support to a bunch of drug smugglers caught in Bali than to a man who faces quite serious penalties if the USA ever gets his hands on him, even though he has not actually broken a US law. One cannot be charged with treason against a nation of which one is not a citizen.
By even suggesting that it's ok to invade the sovereign territory of another nation -- which is what an embassy is -- Britain is making mockery of the right to political asylum as ratified by the Geneva Convention. Ecuador absolutely has the right to decide that under humanitarian grounds it is necessary to aid a man who has sought their protection. The UK has protected those who sought political asylum in the past, despite opposition from their home nations and despite pending "criminal" charges.
The embassy IS hallowed ground, or at least sovereign territory that DOES NOT BELONG TO THE UK. They have no jurisdiction and "invading" the embassy would indeed be an act of war, with the UK (and the US) not having that lovely shield of "liberator" to protect them this time. They would be the aggressors, and if we wanted to look at it in light of international agreements made post-9/11, we'd pretty much be obliged to declare war on the UK on behalf of Ecuador.
So butt the fuck out for a change, England.
It could be worse