SPEAKING OF OPPRESSION...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador?fb=optOut

Ecuador has now made its decision: to grant political asylum to Julian Assange. This comes in the wake of an incident that should dispel remaining doubts about the motives behind the UK/Swedish attempts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Wednesday, the UK government made an unprecedented threat to invade Ecuador's embassy if Assange is not handed over. Such an assault would be so extreme in violating international law and diplomatic conventions that it is difficult to even find an example of a democratic government even making such a threat, let alone carrying it out.

When Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patiño, in an angry and defiant response, released the written threats to the public, the UK government tried to backtrack and say it wasn't a threat to invade the embassy (which is another country's sovereign territory). But what else can we possibly make of this wording from a letter delivered by a British official?

    "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."

Is there anyone in their right mind who believes that the UK government would make such an unprecedented threat if this were just about an ordinary foreign citizen wanted for questioning – not criminal charges or a trial – by a foreign government?

More at the link.

Ain't we got fun?

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador?fb=optOut

Ecuador has now made its decision: to grant political asylum to Julian Assange. This comes in the wake of an incident that should dispel remaining doubts about the motives behind the UK/Swedish attempts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Wednesday, the UK government made an unprecedented threat to invade Ecuador's embassy if Assange is not handed over. Such an assault would be so extreme in violating international law and diplomatic conventions that it is difficult to even find an example of a democratic government even making such a threat, let alone carrying it out.

When Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patiño, in an angry and defiant response, released the written threats to the public, the UK government tried to backtrack and say it wasn't a threat to invade the embassy (which is another country's sovereign territory). But what else can we possibly make of this wording from a letter delivered by a British official?

    "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."

Is there anyone in their right mind who believes that the UK government would make such an unprecedented threat if this were just about an ordinary foreign citizen wanted for questioning – not criminal charges or a trial – by a foreign government?

More at the link.

Ain't we got fun?

We imported our butthurt from england?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador?fb=optOut

Ecuador has now made its decision: to grant political asylum to Julian Assange. This comes in the wake of an incident that should dispel remaining doubts about the motives behind the UK/Swedish attempts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Wednesday, the UK government made an unprecedented threat to invade Ecuador's embassy if Assange is not handed over. Such an assault would be so extreme in violating international law and diplomatic conventions that it is difficult to even find an example of a democratic government even making such a threat, let alone carrying it out.

When Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patiño, in an angry and defiant response, released the written threats to the public, the UK government tried to backtrack and say it wasn't a threat to invade the embassy (which is another country's sovereign territory). But what else can we possibly make of this wording from a letter delivered by a British official?

    "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."

Is there anyone in their right mind who believes that the UK government would make such an unprecedented threat if this were just about an ordinary foreign citizen wanted for questioning – not criminal charges or a trial – by a foreign government?

More at the link.

Ain't we got fun?

We imported our butthurt from england?

Lady, we were MADE in England.  They dumped all their lunatics, then "lost" the American revolution and went home.

It doesn't seem to have done them much good.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador?fb=optOut

Ecuador has now made its decision: to grant political asylum to Julian Assange. This comes in the wake of an incident that should dispel remaining doubts about the motives behind the UK/Swedish attempts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Wednesday, the UK government made an unprecedented threat to invade Ecuador's embassy if Assange is not handed over. Such an assault would be so extreme in violating international law and diplomatic conventions that it is difficult to even find an example of a democratic government even making such a threat, let alone carrying it out.

When Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patiño, in an angry and defiant response, released the written threats to the public, the UK government tried to backtrack and say it wasn't a threat to invade the embassy (which is another country's sovereign territory). But what else can we possibly make of this wording from a letter delivered by a British official?

    "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."

Is there anyone in their right mind who believes that the UK government would make such an unprecedented threat if this were just about an ordinary foreign citizen wanted for questioning – not criminal charges or a trial – by a foreign government?

More at the link.

Ain't we got fun?

We imported our butthurt from england?

Lady, we were MADE in England.  They dumped all their lunatics, then "lost" the American revolution and went home.

It doesn't seem to have done them much good.

We learned, though. There's a bunch of poor fuckers stuck in Oklahoma right now because some great granddaddy went "OBOY! FREE LAND!" 

[The Johnny]

So its not a threat, but it is if we must 

the threat itself angers me, but WHY the need to express it in politically correct convuluted terms??? i dont know why but that just makes me even more angry i dont know why

i mean is politically correct discourse even needed by powerful nations? they do whatever they want anyhow, why do they bother to sound legitimate at all?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So its not a threat, but it is if we must 

Look what you MADE me do!

the threat itself angers me,

Given your nation's history, that's hardly surprising.  I'd be mad, too.

but WHY the need to express it in politically correct convuluted terms??? i dont know why but that just makes me even more angry i dont know why

Incompetence on the part of the British.

i mean is politically correct discourse even needed by powerful nations? they do whatever they want anyhow, why do they bother to sound legitimate at all?

To rub it in?

[The Johnny]

Maybe its just the protocol of a bureaucracy that hasnt caught up with the times, like, i KNOW they dont believe it, and im sure they dont expect anyone with 2 neurons to rub together to know its bullshit.

This is a train of thought assuming that the general populace can see thru the political correctness, but i have the vague suspicion that they, in reality, cant. So maybe it does serve a purpose, and that thought is probably what is making me rage.

[Cain]

In 2011, Iranian protestors breached the British compound in Tehran.  William Hague said

"It amounts to a grave breach of the Vienna Convention which requires the protection of diplomats and diplomatic premises under all circumstances."

"We hold the Iranian Government responsible for its failure to take adequate measures to protect our Embassy, as it is required to do."

In 2012, Craig Murray gets information that the FCO is prepared to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy to seize Assange:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/

I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.

Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other's embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.

The government's calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the "might is right" principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.

The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.

I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in Number 10.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Maybe its just the protocol of a bureaucracy that hasnt caught up with the times, like, i KNOW they dont believe it, and im sure they dont expect anyone with 2 neurons to rub together to know its bullshit.

This is a train of thought assuming that the general populace can see thru the political correctness, but i have the vague suspicion that they, in reality, cant. So maybe it does serve a purpose, and that thought is probably what is making me rage.

More like mobsters, I think.

"Sure is a nice country you have there...It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In 2011, Iranian protestors breached the British compound in Tehran.  William Hague said

"It amounts to a grave breach of the Vienna Convention which requires the protection of diplomats and diplomatic premises under all circumstances."

"We hold the Iranian Government responsible for its failure to take adequate measures to protect our Embassy, as it is required to do."

In 2012, Craig Murray gets information that the FCO is prepared to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy to seize Assange:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/

I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.

Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other's embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.

The government's calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the "might is right" principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.

The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.

I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in Number 10.

Do as we say, not as we do.

I think I need to read Kipling's Cleared again.

[Cain]

Britain's gonna take home a gold medal in hypocrisy this summer!

This is truly and utterly shameless.  We can't get diplomats to cough up money for the congestion charge fee or parking in London, but, hey, offer refuge a guy who really embarrassed the USA and it's all "diplomatic what now?  Lets get the battering rams and the stun guns and go grab us some foreigners, lads!"

[P3nT4gR4m]

Maybe its just the protocol of a bureaucracy that hasnt caught up with the times, like, i KNOW they dont believe it, and im sure they dont expect anyone with 2 neurons to rub together to know its bullshit.

This is a train of thought assuming that the general populace can see thru the political correctness, but i have the vague suspicion that they, in reality, cant. So maybe it does serve a purpose, and that thought is probably what is making me rage.

Emmanuel Goldstein is hiding in a building.  The general populace wouldn't care how many babies you had to blow up to get him. They're unlikely to give a fuck about a bit of diplomatic corner-cutting

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

This is how they get the yahoo vote these days. Ten years ago they couldn't even SAY shit like this, could they?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/17/710101/gop-senate-candidate-suggests-the-voting-rights-act-of-1965-should-be-overturned/?mobile=nc