London's Metropolitan Police arrest Julian Assange Julian Assange has been arrested by London cops at the Ecuadorian Embassy after the nation revoked the asylum it had given him for nearly seven years. BREAKING: #Assange removed from embassy - video pic.twitter.com/qsHy7ZVPg5 — Ruptly (@Ruptly) April 11, 2019 The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) issued a statement this …
In 2012, a crackpot was sent to prison by a court for a crime they did commit. They promptly escaped to the Ecuadorean embassy. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as egotists of ill fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you should try anyone other than the Assange team.
This post has been deleted by its author
The phrase "International Law" is routinely used to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
Until it gets to an actual court of law in which case the speaker needs to specify exactly what law they mean.
When it comes to Countries, and the 'the International Court' there's much more leeway for bargaining, ignoring the judgement or brazenly giving the metaphorical finger.
It comes down to childish gangs squabbling over territory and failing to getting along amicably on a very small (and seemingly getting smaller) planet.
What is this "international law" they are talking about? More specifics would be helpful; otherwise it sounds like a generic, unsupportable claim.
There's a good reason for that...
The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees contains this:-
Article 32 expulsion 1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.
3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.
Article 33 prohibition of expulsion or return (“refoulement”)
1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.
With refugee defined as "a refugee is a person who is outside that person's own country's territory owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds, including race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and participation in any particular social group or social activities. "
Eucador can probably reasonably legitimately claim that Assange is causing them national security problems by upsetting the highest levels of the Spanish government in contravention of agreements he has made:-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/16/julian-assange-ecuador-spain-catalan-independence-meeting-separatists
Hence, no case to answer. Probably. I suppose you could argue any of those points endlessly, although it would achieve precisely nothing at this point.
'With refugee defined as "a refugee is a person who is outside that person's own country's territory owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds, including race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and participation in any particular social group or social activities. "'
Assange was none of these things. He was a fugitive from justice.
Does it ignore English-speaking humans more than it ignores Spanish-speaking humans, or vice versa? Or are all humans ignored equally?
Not around here!
The little bastards dug up my seed bed, crapped in a second place and then seemed to try to cover it up in a third place. They are out of control of their owners and I should be allowed to protect my property from them and kill the bastards.
<<steam from ears!>>
They are out of control of their owners and I should be allowed to protect my property from them and kill the bastards
Two problems:
1. Under English Law, cats are not counted as domesticated creatures (unlike dogs who are counted as domesticated animals under the control of their owners) and thus the owners cannot be held liable for their actions (again, unlike dogs). You can, however, be prosecuted for harming a cat since they can be counted as property - so you are suggesting destroying someone else's property..
2. You need some lessons in balance and empathy. Do you really think that harming a living creature of any kind is an acceptable response to losing some seeds? There are ways of keeping cats out of your precious seedbeds but they actually involve you doing something and actually having a think about it.
'Apparently cats forget the face of their owners in as little as 3 days anyway.'
Owners?
As for the forgetting the face of their owners in three days...I used to spend months away from home at at time, I'd then show up early on a Saturday morning and would be swamped by the attentions of my then tribe of furry little overlords as soon as I entered the house...sure, they had other simian slaves looking after them when I wasn't there, but they used to go all apeshittykitty when I showed up and swarm all over me demanding serious amounts of fussings and attention, so, I don't buy that one as a general rule.
'Julian who?'
Quite....once the news wonks move on from the story and he's then surreptitiously spirited away and sequestered in a nice Federal Oubliette somewhere (?) that's a question we'll probably hear from lots of people in the years to come...
Never enter an arsekicking contest with a porcupine, if you are idiot enough to consider doing something so foolish, then best make bloody sure beforehand that you're suitably armoured up, and that it's fit for task...and that the porcupine doesn't have both deep pockets and a bloody large belligerent military at their beck and call (how to win friends and influence people, eh?) and has been playing this arsekicking game for more years than you have, and is a lot better at it than you are..
Never enter an arsekicking contest with a porcupine
Or a mud-wrestling competition with a pig. You'll both get dirty and only[1] the pig will enjoy[2] it.
[1] OK - maybe not. But that's a whole other bag of fetishes[3]
[2] And also, most pigs come with big tetth and, despite not being carnivores, will eat just about anything and are not worried about biting whatever is annoying them.
[3] And not of the shamanistic kind.
You could always smell her a mile off for sure!
I live with seven (and a dog). You don't smell cats on me because we actually look after ours (they all have easy access to the outside world and the cat trays we maintain for the two that don't like going outside get cleaned every day).
So your cat-person either doesn't care (ie - has no sense of smell) or doesn't look after the cats well.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
