you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (26 children)

Assange has not been treated fairly

How and who? Details please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (25 children)

    For one thing, not being allowed to leave for the country where he's sought and been granted asylum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (24 children)

    He had an arrest warrant in the country he was located. It's called law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (23 children)

    The country where he is located Ecuador. That's how embassies work. He is on Ecuadorian soil and should be allowed to leave for Ecuador.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    The country where he is located Ecuador. That’s how embassies work. He is on Ecuadorian soil

    That is not true, though it's a common misconception. Embassies are not extraterritorial. They are granted specific legal protections by treaty by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that prevents the host country's law enforcement from entering and arresting people, but the territory on which they are located does not belong to the guest country.

    The ability to provide asylum in an embassy is based on this text:

    https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

    Article 22

    1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

    2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

    3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

    The only case I can think of off-the-cuff where territory was explicitly made extraterritorial was during World War II. The Dutch royal family had fled abroad due to the Netherlands being occupied by the Nazis, and Princess Margriet was born there. I vaguely recall that there is some restriction in Dutch law that requires a member of the royal family to be born on native Dutch soil to remain in the line of royal succession or something like that.

    The Canadian parliament passed a law to, for a brief period of time, render the maternity ward of the hospital in which Princess Margriet was to be born, Dutch territory.

    googles

    Actually, looks like I misremembered that. According to Wikipedia, even in that case, they didn't declare it to be Dutch territory, just to not be part of Canada:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margriet_of_the_Netherlands

    The Dutch royal family went into exile when the Netherlands was occupied by Nazi Germany in 1940, and went to live in Canada. Margriet was born in Ottawa Civic Hospital, Ottawa. The maternity ward of the hospital was temporarily declared to be extraterritorial by the Canadian government.[3][4] This ensured that the newborn would not be born in Canada, and not be a British subject under the rule of jus soli. Instead, the child would only inherit Dutch citizenship from her mother under the principle of jus sanguinis, which is followed in Dutch nationality law. Thus, the child would be eligible to succeed to the throne of the Netherlands. This would have applied if the child had been male, and therefore heir apparent to Juliana, or if her two older sisters died without eligible children.

    It is a common misconception that the Canadian government declared the maternity ward to be Dutch territory. That was not necessary, as Canada follows jus soli, while the Netherlands follows jus sanguinis. It was sufficient for Canada to disclaim the territory temporarily.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (21 children)

    And stayed at the embassy until he couldn't any more and was arrested by the Brits. I still don't see what's unfair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (20 children)

    Again, the unfair part was not allowing him to leave for Ecuador. His Ecuadorian citizenship got revoked when the British arrested him, but he should not have been arrested because he was an asylum seeker granted Ecuadorian citizenship.

    Would you also oppose Jews seeking asylum in foreign consulates in pre-WWII Germany and Italy being taken out of Germany and Italy? One of those people was Albert Einstein.

    Or is Assange somehow a special case when it comes to seeking asylum.

    This isn't even about Assange personally or whether or not he deserves to be prosecuted for what he did. This is about how the U.S. and Britain can get away with ignoring someone who has both been granted asylum and citizenship of a third country. And I don't care if you are guilty or innocent of your crimes, that is simply wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (19 children)

    That's not how it works. In order to leave the embassy he would have to set foot on Brit soil, and he had an arrest warrant. He was not granted asylum by Britain, only Ecuador. As I remember, they were the only country to say yes. They changed government, and there you go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (18 children)

    And in order to leave the American embassy, Einstein had to cross German soil. He was allowed to because he was granted asylum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (17 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (16 children)

    Weird, because William H. Geist famously refused to give Einstein a visa and public outcry forced him to flip on that. And then he was taken to the U.S.

    Do you think the plane took off from the embassy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    I think Einstein didn't have a warrant out for his arrest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    True. He was just Jewish. And yet the Germans let him leave anyway. You do know that they didn't let any Jew who wanted to leave without a visa, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (13 children)

    Visas are for entering countries, not leaving them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (12 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (11 children)

    Other than Einstein being just like Assange, but not. What you got? Oh, Nazi paperwork? OK. But, I think you have have diluted your argument sufficiently

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    You made a false claim. I showed you the claim was false. I'm not sure why you can't acknowledge that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    I'm still not sure why you think Assange was treated unfairly when the law was followed. So I guess we're even.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    No, we're not even. I gave an opinion. You made an incorrect statement you tried to pass off as factual.

    Any time you want to admit you were factually in error, go for it.

    But I won't be holding my breath. This is the internet. Dishonesty rules.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    That's pretty funny. You can't support your fantasy but blame me. Typical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Any time you want to admit you said something false, feel free. I realize that saying "I was wrong" is the worst thing a person can possibly do... but maybe don't have that particular conservative mode of thinking and have some humility?

    I gave an opinion. Was that opinion based on incorrect information? Possibly. So far you have not demonstrated that to be the case.

    On the other hand, you stated something as a fact. You were shown to be factually incorrect. You refuse to admit it.

    Apparently you, like many conservatives, even though you are supposedly not a conservative, think that ever admitting you were wrong shows that you are weak. It doesn't.

    I am guessing next up will you be trying to gaslight by insisting that you didn't make a basic factual error.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    I see...

    Your opinion is not based on anything but a feeling.

    There are ramifications for actions. Trump will find his. Assange will find his. You'll only cry for one of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    Yes, again, I understand that you think admitting you were wrong is a form of weakness.

    It still isn't.

    And even if my opinion was based only on a feeling, you were still factually incorrect and you still won't just do the adult thing and admit it. My god, what do you think will happen if you just say, "I was wrong." Do you think the world will laugh at you and you'll have to live like a hermit in shame or something? Is it really that scary that you can't just say those three words?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    Hang onto to your feeling of being right. Gawd knows you need to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Why are you being such a coward about this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments