Oh come on.
The grossly ignorant rhetoric from Equador is matched only by the continuously poor reporting of the facts around this entire issue - on both sides I might add.
Hacktivist cabal Anonymous has continued its attack on UK government websites in retaliation to the UK’s treatment of Julian Assange, this time hitting former Wales and Northern Ireland Secretary, Peter Hain. Hain told the BBC he feels Anonymous' actions resemble those he experienced in the “anti-apartheid and anti-fascist …
The protest by Anonymous comparable with the ANC? Tell that to the generations of black South Africans forced to live a third-class life until the lifting of apartheid.
And "because the protest is perceived by Anonymouse to be to protect free speech"? Well I perceive myself to be Jesus of Nazareth, therefore my writing this is comparable to the issuing of the gospel, or? Or is there something more than partisan, adolescent, fantastical perception required to form a piece of sound reasoning?
Well the basic mistake of the assange team here is that they didn't help prop up a massively unpopular UK govt in staging a phoney war in the south Atlantic, nor allow their banking system to be used as a live test bed for the new 'I'm alright Jack, Fuck You' political system that thatch was experimenting with at the time. I mean,. be practical about it, whats the civil rights of a few hundred thousand people when set against... the total deregulation of the finance sector, giving us derivatives and sub-prime mortgages, and insider dealing and all of the other wonderful things that issued forth from the cantankerous xenophobic harridan.
A 'phoney war'? Of all the wars Britain could engage in, one to defend its subjects against an aggressive dictatorship is the least 'phoney' war I can imagine. There was no acquisition of territory, no military build-up beforehand, no and certainly no dodgy dossier. Of course I recognise that for some people their swivel-eyed hatred of Mrs Thatcher blinds them to anything she might have done that was right.
>A 'phoney war'? Of all the wars Britain could engage in
Ah, but would it have engaed in war if an election was not nearing? One fears that had an election not been imminent then Thatcher might have taken a more diplomatic course of action and a bloodless resolution found. As it was she saw that there would be nothing more beneficial for an election campaign than a bit of Argy bashing. And if you think that politicains would not sacrifice the lives of soldiers for their own political end then you are truly deluded.
Some ostensibly left-wing people's hatred of Thatcher leads them to this bizarre position. They support a right-wing military dictatorship which threw opponents out of aircraft, alive - over a democratic state with a welfare system. This suggests to me that their left-wing principles are pretty flexible.
@Naughtyhorse: "staging a phoney war in the south Atlantic"
That's a direct quote from you. In what way was the Falklands war (1) phoney, (2) "staged" by the UK? We were the victims of aggression by a murderous right-wing dictatorship - but somehow because Thatcher was in charge, we were in the wrong.
the falklands was bollocks, could have been sorted diplomatically, but she couldnt resist the pr of waving off out gallant boys... to what exactly? sinking a hospital ship, way outside the theatre, and heading further away. thank god WE were the good guys, and selling our soul to a PROPER evil right wing fuck like pinochet was cheap at half the price.
Thatcher was in charge, we were in the wrong.
Thatcher was in charge, she was in the wrong.
fixed it for you.
you think 'what about the vegetables' was a joke???
If the Falklands had been just another old colony that we hadn't got around to freeing and it was the natives that were rebelling, then yes, Thatcher probably would have probably gone the diplomatic route.
Since it was actually British sovereign territory, inhabited by nobody but British nationals being invaded by a foreign nation you'd have to be an idiot in the extreme to think there'd be any result other than military intervention, regardless of how close the next election was.
A "hospital ship"?!! The General Belgrano was an armoured battlecruiser, with serious guns. If that ship had got within gun range of the task force, it would have been a massacre. The submarine tailing the Belgrano was about to lose them as they crossed a shallow undersea ridge. It was a completely legitimate sinking, and the fact that the UK paused for thought before sinking it shows a lot more restraint than any other nation.
And how could the Falklands have been sorted out diplomatically? What would have persuaded a military dictatorship to leave? Or are you happy to sell out people to right-wing dictatorship if it benefits your political party?
Your posts are so light on facts, so twisted against reason, I'm beginning to wonder if you're just a very subtle troll.
"Meanwhile, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa said that the standoff regarding Assange as an “unfortunate incident over, after a grave diplomatic error by the British in which they said they would enter our embassy.""
Did you mean rhetoric like this where the Ecuadorian President granted politcal asylum for Assange so he could skip out on his obligations to face rape charges in Sweden?
Sweden, really? Isn't that the country where they still believe in death by pressing? Only now instead of piling on rocks, they use members of the 'Swedish Topless Bikini Team' to pile on until the poor sod can't breath along with all of the blood flowing away from his head to his other head?
Ok, so you get the point. Sweden isn't going to torture the sod, nor does he face any other extradition requests so there was no legal foundation for the Ecuadorian 'rescue'.
The difference between Pinochet and Assange is jurisdiction: Spain had no claim of jurisdiction over Pinochet. The judge in question was acting on an assumed right to try crimes in another country over which he had no legal title. Assange, meanwhile, is accused of committing a crime in Sweden, against a Swedish citizen. We may argue with the legal merit of that crime but Sweden's law stands (even if might be alien to our own sensibilities) and it has that jurisdictional right to lay charges against the man. The Spanish judge demanding Pinochet's extradition had no such right.
So they are simply not comparable.
This is incorrect; torture has universal jurisdiction under both the customary international law concept of jus cogens and, specifically, under the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 5(1)(c).
"1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate."
The Spanish court thus had jurisdiction; the question was more if Pinochet should be protected by the immunity traditionally extended to heads of state.
This post has been deleted by its author
You are incorrect:
"Passive personality jurisdiction
Article 5(1)(c) UNCAT covers jurisdiction over acts
committed against the State party’s nationals
(passive personality jurisdiction), again wherever
these acts have allegedly been committed. This
competence is however optional, meaning the State
is not compelled by the UNCAT to establish such a
The victims were Spanish. Spain therefore has jurisdiction if it wishes to assert it, regardless of any other state,
In the last day or so it was announced that Mr Blair will be providing consultancy services to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the state of Sao Paulo, here in Brazil.
I don't seem to be able to escape from him, no matter how far I travel :)
One was supported by the CIA and had thousands of Chilean civilians killed and tens of thousands imprisoned and tortured, the other faces questioning in Sweden over a broken condom or two (and possibly also secretly in the USA for "espionage" aka "embarrassing us on the international stage").
So yes, the two cases are not really comparable.
The difference between Pinochet and Assange is that we made a MISTAKE not extraditing Pinochet and we are trying not to make the same mistake with Assange. Just because a previous government (Tony B Liar) fucked up it once does not set a legal precedent where we have to keep fucking up and not extraditing people when requested by another country.
If the squawking bunch of halfwitted losers I saw being dragged away from outside the embassy by the police last week were representative of anonymous and/or their supporters I don't think the government has much to worry about as their combined IQ was probably less than the largest plods shoe size.
As for attacking government websites - do these muppets seriously think crashing what are essentially government PR websites is somehow going to bring government to a halt or change policy? If so these kids really need to do some serious growing up.
"Shows you just how illiterate the Ancient Britons were.
Try "Romani domum eant" (subjunctive) or "Romani domum ite" (imperative)."
That was the sound of the satire of the other Anonymous post whizzing over your head, along with the implicit reference to Life of Brian.
This post has been deleted by its author
I've always likened them more to terrorists. Not because what they do is on the same kind of moral scale but because they're angry criminals trying to paint themselves as some kind of heroes representing the populous at large and because they attempt to inflict as much collateral damage as possible since they don't have the capability to attack their targets directly.
Considering that Hain opposed Assange's extradition on top of the whole Virgin Media/Pirate Bay fiasco they don't really seem to care too much who they attack, as long as they get the headlines.
a little self centered perhaps ?
have you considered that they might be thinking they are heroes of the minority, which should have the same level or more protection than the majority, but do not.
(more protection because the majority would naturally skew in the opposite direction, therefore need greater protection because of the lack of support they would normally enjoy).
pinochet is actually a war criminal, charged with murdering many many people, UK didn't exactly attempt to bust him did they? assange is accused of bad sexual etiquette and borderline asshole nature, hardly comparable, yet the UK are acting like there is a mass murdering child raping psychopath in the building, armed police? infra-red + heat sensors....
are they serious??
This post has been deleted by its author
Yeah, sure! Like UK was so eager to extradite Pinochet but, Gosh! they had no power to do so. Of course they didn't be cause US told them not to do it, it is as simple as that. Now it's US telling them to do it so of course they have the power to do it. Anyone sees something wrong in this picture ?
While I have some sympathy with George Galloway over whether the word "rape" is getting over-used, I think his comments go too far the other way in this case. But whether the particular case would get anywhere in court, none of us can know. As for the people who are pushing the lack of consent line, I have a feeling they're over-focused on the text of the statute. The problem we have is that if Assange doesn't end up in court now, a lot of exploitative sexual chancers are going to carry on as they are.
There's a term which gets thrown around at times like this as a counter to the idea that Assange didn't do anything serious--"rape culture", they say, labelling the counter-claim that these sexual abuses, and so many others, are really OK. Maybe we should call what Assange is accused of doing sexual abuse. Let the courts decide if it was rape, not the newspapers.
We men can admit to making mistakes. Apply the "rape" label, and would anyone want to admit anything?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019