Covert plan at Ecuadorian Embassy strengthened after removing dedicated guards (Assange)

a reply to: Aazadan

That's nothing more than a lame excuse to avoid prosecution in Sweden. Secondly since there are no charges no its not a real possibility and as I pointed out before a country can refuse extradition requests, as the UK did to the US reference McKinnon.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: grainofsand

Because the situation Assange got himself into does not come remotely close to the cardinal who had already been arrested and imprisoned for 8 years for opposing Fascists and communism.

Oh please, why keep on about it, I never once compared the back stories, just individuals hiding out in embassies for the longest time. Loosen up man, have a cup of tea perhaps.

Just because Ecuador granted him Asylum doesn't mean its lawful. All it means is the local police cant enter the embassy to arrest him because its an embassy.

Yep, legislation prevents UK police and security forces from entering that embassy. If the law didn't prevent them they would have gone in by now.

My opinion is based on law and my experience and training, which includes dealing with diplomats and how that process works.

So what?
It's still just speculation and opinion. You have no idea about the back story in the diplomatic/inter-governmental circles regarding Assange.
You know no more than I do about it, for all we know Ecuador knows full well that Assange is in desperate trouble if they refuse to shelter him. I'm not saying that is the case, but simply speculating as you are.

Your credentials are irrelevant unless you were high enough in the food chain to know the back story.
I was a senior Crown servant for some years of my life, making and signing decisions on behalf of Secretaries of State...also completely irrelevant to the OP, but relevant enough for me to know the shady dealings going on higher up, plenty of which I was complicit in myself. That's just politics and government.

a reply to: grainofsand

We do know the back story since it was provided when Asylum was granted. We also heard all about in during the extradition appeals process where Assange and his lawyer used every stunt in the book to try and link his issue in Sweden to WikiLeaks and the US. The British judge stated his guarantees under the EU and Swedish law protect him.


Julian Assange: Ecuador grants Wikileaks founder asylum

Ecuador has granted asylum to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange two months after he took refuge in its London embassy while fighting extradition from the UK.

It said his human rights might be violated if he is sent to Sweden to be questioned over sex assault claims.

As I said.. not compatible with the use of an embassy but since it cant be stormed and Assange arrested here we are. There is a law from 1987 that allows diplomatic status of a building to be revoked if the building is being used in contradiction to is established purpose. Like hiding an individual to prevent extradition to answer charges of a crime when that person is not under threat of death or harm.

Diplomatic protocol and laws are the same regardless of what country you are in. Its laid out in -
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations - 1961 **PDF FILE LINK**

originally posted by: Xcathdra


Yes manning broke the law... As did Assange when he aided him in retrieving and sending the classified material and he broke the law when he released the information.

Something I notice you are ignoring.

Im not ignoring.

I just dont RECOGNIZE it. There is a difference.

I accept that in Saudi Arabia thats its a capital offense to commit adultery. I just dont recognize it as moral or feel I have any responsibility to aid Saudi Authorities in apprehending suspects to that crime.

I am neither a US citizen nor residing in the US so I dont have to recognize your silly laws.

Just because you have a law on your books I dont have any responsibility to agree with that law do I ?

It may be a a OFFICAL law/policy in the USA but you cant make me agree with it and I wont support the USA is enforcing it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
yup and Gary McKinnon was also in the UK when he used an electronic medium to hack his way into US government computers to steal classified information. The same thing Assange did when he used the internet to get the information in question from a US source.

Last I checked hacking is illegal in the UK.
So I saw at the time no reason he should not have been tried and sentenced for that crime in the UK.
Sure the target was in the USA but it occurred from UK soil. So as far as I am concerned he should have been tried here.
Especially since your justice system in the USA is a joke and he was more likely to get a fair trial within the UK.

As far as concerned he got off lightly and should be serving time in a UK prison

But between being free and serving time in the USA I rather he walk free.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
McKinnon was not extradited because of his disability status.

EU bill of human rights obviously trumps your extradition treaty......I wont shed a tear on that.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Assange violated Swedish law while he was in Sweden. Why are his actions acceptable, refusing to answer the charges and then hiding in an embassy like a whiny little b**ch, acceptable to you?

You argued after all about being in a country and violating that countries laws, which Assange did.

If Sweden guaranteed you American wont get your filthy hands on him then I agree he should go to Sweden.
Failing that I think Sweden should send a official over to question him. If evidence appears to implicate his guilt then Ecuador would be in there right to expel him.

From the sounds of it though the charges are all but dropped.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: grainofsand

We do know the back story since it was provided when Asylum was granted.

Ah, I stopped reading there, you clearly have not been involved in very high positions for your own governments administration. You may advise 'diplomats' but you are just a contractor if you don't know that shady decisions, nods and winks, happen all the time.

I repeat, you do not know the back story which is behind official published government releases. Neither do I of course, but I'm not foolish enough to solely believe the official government position lol, that is actually funny as #!

a reply to: grainofsand


Actually thats why I brought out the shill word.

I disagree with many on ATS but have only used it for two people on my three years here.

Only reason I bring it up is the 100% adherence to officially US policys and positions.
Unless you work for them I can how you can so blindly accept there official word and policies.

a reply to: crazyewok

Haha, I thought the same, just avoided the S word!
I spent a decade and a half working my way up to senior Civil Service and encountered shadiness all the way through my promotion, heck I even made a thread about my involvement in cleaning/shredding citizens files before the 'Access to Information' codes came in back in the 90's. It's in my thread history.

Matey is either a contractor legal advice type, very low in government service so ignorant of what actually goes on with a nod and a wink, or has some other reason to promote the government line...that would be the S word of course.


*Edit*
At the end of the day most Crown/law/government/politics is just a #ing game when one becomes aware of the unwritten rules.
Even the 'sympathetic officer' who commented earlier is just front-line staff with a telescopic baton relying on The Crown to agree with him/her to prosecute while holding misguided illusions of 'being the law'.

Many years ago I enjoyed teasing a cop by giving him the required minimal details (my name and a phone number in London) when he pulled me over driving a Crown car with no tax disk displayed in the windscreen. That was really funny as #!

...the UK is corrupt as # but pretends it is not, it's all down to who is friends in whichever social circles.
The Crown couldn't pass info on citizens to police without serious risk of harm to others if they did not' back in my day, but Crown servants still passed the info over a coffee or a pint in their social circles.
It's human nature, that hasn't changed since I've left service, and anyone who thinks it has may need to chat to more people lol.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Salander

What I think funny is the US throwing possible charges like treason out for him.

Stupid cause
1) He is not a US citizen
2)he was not in the US when he released his files

And us you said on the rape charges in Sweden they are all but dismissed.

Yes, and he is no more a traitor than Ellsberg was back when. They are both good responsible citizens, of whichever country, citizens that object to government committing crimes as it pleases.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What is wrong with exposing the crimes of government?

a reply to: grainofsand

Do you believe that Assange raped those women?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: grainofsand

Do you believe that Assange raped those women?

I don't know, but my gut instinct is no, it is all about agreement for sex using a condom anyway, not forced rape, and only the people involved know the truth.
Assange was sensible in my opinion seeking asylum with Ecuador...the US an UK would send him to the wolves, that is for sure.

a reply to: Salander

The US never stated anything about treason. That tripe came from Assange and his lawyer when they were trying to fear monger tactics to get out of a crime Assange committed.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Xcathdra

What is wrong with exposing the crimes of government?

Nothing but let me ask - what crimes were committed in the leaked files? If the intent is to hold a government accountable releasing the files for monetary gain undermines the stated end goal.

Whats wrong with holding Assange accountable for his crimes? Either the US or Sweden?

originally posted by: grainofsand
Assange was sensible in my opinion seeking asylum with Ecuador...the US an UK would send him to the wolves, that is for sure.

Based on what? Your extensive knowledge and training on the back story of the US and Sweden?

Ironic that you are doing the very thing you just accused me of doing. You should have read the entire post instead of picking / choosing the info that supports your agenda while ignoring information that doesn't.

You just pulled an Assange.. Congrats.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Xcathdra

What is wrong with exposing the crimes of government?

Nothing but let me ask - what crimes were committed in the leaked files? If the intent is to hold a government accountable releasing the files for monetary gain undermines the stated end goal.

Whats wrong with holding Assange accountable for his crimes? Either the US or Sweden?

This is why we are questioning your motives.

You keep repeating the same policy lines over and over. Like us brits will suddenly start waving US flags and storm the Ecuador embassy and send Assange packing on the first flight to the US. Its not going to happen.

Leaving Sweden aside none of us on this thread support the US governments stance. To us regarding your silly laws he has none no wrong. You and your masters in DC may think he deserves to be punished in the USA but WE DON'T and WE NEVER WILL.

It doesn't matter to us there are some laws in a US law book that says otherwise and you can post them and recite them over and over. WE DONT CARE. We dont agree with them or recognize them and you have NO JURISDICTION over us as far as we are concerned any more than Saudi Arabia have jurisdiction in regards to there barbaric laws.

Never mind, not going to throw oil on the fire. I have a life to live in reality, not on forums.

originally posted by: BMorris
Never mind, not going to throw oil on the fire. I have a life to live in reality, not on forums.

Shame that was a good post.

You right maybe we should start extradition for US gun owners to the UK! As by Xcathdra logic UK law must apply to the US too :p

a reply to: Xcathdra

Apologies, here, I'll rephrase the entire post which you selectively quoted:

I don't know, but my gut instinct is no, it is all about agreement for sex using a condom anyway, not forced rape, and only the people involved know the truth.
Assange was sensible in my opinion seeking asylum with Ecuador...the US an UK would send him to the wolves, that is how I interpret the situation.

There you go, no more assertion, just my opinion and speculation, which is all you or I have to contribute.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Xcathdra

What is wrong with exposing the crimes of government?

Nothing but let me ask - what crimes were committed in the leaked files? If the intent is to hold a government accountable releasing the files for monetary gain undermines the stated end goal.

Whats wrong with holding Assange accountable for his crimes? Either the US or Sweden?

Thank you for a straight answer. We agree nothing is wrong with exposing the crimes of government. Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, exposing the crimes of government is one's civic duty.

So, if we agree that nothing is wrong with exposing the crimes of government, what crime did Assange commit?

a reply to: crazyewok

Thats the problem considering the US government stance has nothing to do with Sweden. As for the Us government position on Assange no charges have been filed so its safe to assume their official position thus far is dealing with the source, which was manning.

Assange and Sweden have nothing to do with the US and trying to link to 2 is disingenuous. He is trying to get out of the Swedish issue by dragging the US into the mix with nothing but lies. Yes, when assange and his lawyer invoked the treason charge (which doesn't apply to non Americans), the death penalty (which is not a punishment under the laws in question and cant be considered), Assange being sent to Gitmo (which again does not apply to Assange), that Sweden is doing this at the behest of the US government (something the UK courts and Swedish courts already dealt with).

By the way yes, the US law can apply to individuals outside the US who actively participated in this breech / electronic crimes. Just as foreign countries have issued red flag notice / warrants for foreign nationals accused of electronics crimes.

Your own NCA has had over 1,181 arrests with regards to cyber crimes around the globe for violations of UK laws so you can keep the lecturing to yourself.

Its really not a concern if you think it doesnt apply as we can see it does. You are in the minority apparently.