71–80 of 287 posts
Why does Ecuador even want to stand its ground on this? Why do they want to harbor Assange in the first place? Seems silly to escalate this to the national level when they don't seem to benefit from it in any material or practical sense.
It appears under UK law the Prime Minister could denounce the embassy as no longer Ecuadorian territory. The UK government has 'reminded' Ecuador of this fact in an attempt to influence their decision.
I am starting to think that the event Julian Assange fears most is that he'll end up in Sweden, walking down the street either a free man or after serving some time in jail, and have to wonder "what should I do now?"
* The "rape" case against Assange is basically made up, with both of the women he had sex with sending celebratory texts after the events. http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange...
* Feminist-biased Sweden = possible long sentence for Assange.
* Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extraditi...), which means there is a possibility he can be shipped out to the US.
* The US has extremely intelligent politicians (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334341/WikiLeaks-Sa...) who demand that Assange be hunted down like a terrorist.
Is it a surprise he doesn't want to "go back to Sweden to face the charges"?
Did anyone not see this coming? Does he actually think they won't go after him to the full extent they are capable? The thing about being a martyr for a cause is that they usually don't walk away from the experience unscathed. I think this man thought he was untouchable and acted accordingly, deciding to be a celebrity instead of a quiet hero. Well, the hammer is dropping. Good luck, Julian, you completely unlikable…
If you walk away with your life you're by definition not a martyr.
Why does Ecuador even want to stand its ground on this? Why do they want to harbor Assange in the first place? Seems silly to escalate this to the national level when they don't seem to benefit from it in any material or practical sense.
The only thing that they should be looking at, is whether or not his case for asylum is valid under their rules.
If the UK really is threatening that, then that is more evidence that the Swedish charges are politically motivated rather than being from an actual crime.
Or he is someone who flees from serious charges and the British authorities don’t want to look like idiots in front of the whole world because they can’t do something simple like extradite him. Why is there this willingness to believe everything this idiot says? He’s a pompous ass, pure and simple. No conspiracy required. Meanwhile the idea of an anonymous leaks platform dies because everyone focuses on his stupid an…
...they're looking like idiots right now.
Isn't that basically an act of war? Or something just short of it? I can't remember another time when one country threatened to enter another country's embassy without an invitation... Have there been other cases like this in recent history??
This may not answer your question, but it's somewhat related as it kind of did lead to war against Iran (at least that's what wikipedia tells me). >The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, after a group of Islamist students and militants took over the American Embassy in Tehran in su…