Russia issues warning to Britain over Assange
Source: France24
AFP - Russia on Friday warned Britain against violating fundamental diplomatic principles after London suggested it could arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange inside Ecuador's embassy.
"What is happening gives grounds to contemplate the observance of the spirit and the letter of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and in particular the Article 22 spelling out the inviolability of diplomatic premises," the Russian foreign ministry said.
Read more: http://www.france24.com/en/20120817-russia-issues-warning-britain-over-assange
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
William769
(55,142 posts)Someone needs to warn them of violating fundamental human rights! 
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
Pictured above: a guy who never got 2 years of extradition hearings in an open court of law.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The war was stupid and wrong but there's no comparison.
How about Russia in Azerbijian, Georgia and elsewhere? If we're going to play We-Suck-Russia-Better let's at least be honest. It's not like Georgia was supporting terrorists, mass-slaughtering civilians and under a decade plus of international sanctions.
tama
(9,137 posts)but US forces have targeted and murdered several journalists. As has Russia. Wikileaks has published vid of US helicopter murdering journalists and other civilians, while Russian standard practice seems to be black op assassinations of journalists it don't like. There really is no point trying to compare which is better or which is worse.
As for Georgia, it started the war by invading it's former area that was seeking independence, and Russia offered armed assistance for the new state under it's protection. Parallel to Kosovo is clear. Tshetshenia would be much better example of Russian crimes than Georgia, if one believes in freedom and that nobody should be forced to belong to state they don't want to belong.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Saddam Hussein is NOT the hundred thousand innocent Iraqis slaughtered by U.S. "shock and awe" bombing, nor the thousands of innocents arrested and tortured by the U.S.
Babies, children, grandparents and the elderly, the ill and disabled, pregnant women, parents, teachers, shopkeepers, ordinary workers, women and men who never committed any kind of crime except being born in Iraq--horribly murdered by the U.S. and their society torn asunder, with, in addition, millions displaced and on-going poisoning from U.S. military toxins. Not to mention their oil getting appropriated by contracts signed at the point of a gun.
This, to you, is "getting Saddam." This, to you, can be summed up as deposing one bad guy who didn't have WMDs and whose country was already prostrate from sanctions.
That is exactly the line of bullcrap that Junior and his handlers spouted.
I seem to remember, as well, some 12 journalists murdered by the U.S. military during the invasion of Iraq, including the deliberate targeting of the Baghdad hotel where all the journalists were assembled and the bombing of Al Jazeera's broadcast station in Baghdad.
And that's not all. Since the U.S.-engineered rightwing coup d'etat in Honduras, Honduras has become the most dangerous place in the world for journalists--many murders of journalists including another one just yesterday, by RW death squads with complete impunity. It is also exceedingly dangerous for peaceful political activists (trade unionists and others) in Honduras--hundreds have been murdered, tortured, imprisoned--and these conditions also exist, even more so, in Colombia where the military itself, funded by $7 billion in U.S. tax dollars, has committed about half of the murders of trade unionists (according to Amnesty International) and their RW death squads the other half. These two U.S. client states have two of the worst human rights records in the world.
The comparison of the U.S. to Russia on recent aggressions, and on human rights, is, unfortunately, very apt. This does not excuse Russia's aggressions or human rights violations. Both countries' leaders are utterly hypocritical on these matters.
Here, the perpetrators of horrendous crimes--mass murder, torture, massive theft--go free, get U.S. pensions, write books, have presidential libraries, get to pontificate on corporate TV, live in luxury--and suffer not the least bit of investigation, let alone accountability and what they really, really deserve--prison!
It ain't Julian Assange who is evil or Bradley Manning. They are the Daniel Ellsbergs of our time, as Ellsberg himself has said. Those who hated and feared Ellsberg tried to smear Ellsberg, too--that's why they burglarized his psychiatrist's office. Standard procedure for governments with terrible secrets to conceal from their people.
Very, very sadly, that has not changed since Nixon's time. It has only gotten worse, much worse. The real criminals are protected. Those who expose them are persecuted and smeared.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Don't play me off as some neocon just because Assange won't answer for physically forcing himself on women.
The Saddam reference was to make a point that Iraq was not the as the apparently now holier-than-the-US Russians lecturing about diplomacy. To claim otherwise would just be one more in an ever-increasingly long list of fictions trumped up to deny women equality and due process under the law because of politics.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)They bragged to their friends that they slept with Assange. The sheer scale of rape in the US, during our wars,
hell even Sweden (which has some of the worst rape prosecution stats in Europe) and everyone's getting worked up over THIS case?
My heart just breaks for real rape victims who often wait (forever) for justice.
This political stunt is hideous, especially in its treatment of women. Especially the women involved in the Assange case, who've been told by their paternalistic state that they don't really know that they've been "raped"! And that despite the women's adamant desire to NOT press charges, the paternalistic state believes it can supercede the wishes of its own citizens and advance the case FOR them). I can't even imagine being the women involved - if this ever comes to a resolution in Sweden they will be forced to become hostile witnesses (if they can be found. One of them has fled the country and vows to not return) detailing their sex with Assange?!
Ick. Just completely patriarchal and disgusting. Any DUers who purport to really be on the side of women's rights, THESE women's rights who have already made it clear that the state can shove it, are really showing their sexist streaks here.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)"Don't play me off as some neocon just because Assange won't answer for physically forcing himself on women. "
Sure sounds like some PNAC bullshit! They'd make up lies to try to prove some bullshit point too! 
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)a 9/11 conspiracy theorist will claim the towers were pulled down with a hammer.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Including through direct targeting, as when they struck Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya on the day they entered Bagdad.
On the order of 650,000 dead thanks to a war of aggression by US-UK, and hundreds of them were journalists.
Anyway, why are you here to distract from the point? Russia and everyone else who is pointing to the Vienna Treaty is 100 percent right about how unprecedented and dangerous it would be if the UK were to violate that treaty.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)A warning. Not a lecture. Two wholly and separate concepts.
And, as stated elsewhere, being incorrect on topic A has very little if anything in regards to being correct or incorrect regarding Topic B... conflating the two is irrelevantl
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that specializes in convicting terrorists.
If you think that Assange would get a "fair trial" in this country, I disagree.
The powers that be have lost all measure of reason when it comes to Assange.
Just why is unclear.
Assange was obvious in what he did. If he could do it so easily and at so little financial cost, imagine what the real spies are stealing from our so-called security system.
Assange is a scapegoat. Our security bureaucracy wants everyone to pay attention to what a bad guy he is because they don't want any scrutiny of their own failure to narrow the kinds and numbers of documents considered secret and then really protect them from dissemination.
Assange is about protecting the jobs of a lot of comfortable bureaucrats and members of Congress who, like me, do not understand the digital age and its equipment. This not really about Assange or about espionage.
The documents Assange receives are GIVEN TO HIM by people who are not given the time of day by their superiors. That describes Manning as I understand it.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts) Eat my droneRZM
(8,556 posts)Anglo-Russian relations definitely took a hit after the Litvinenko incident. I don't think they've really fully recovered either. So perhaps that's why Russia felt they could do this. If they were more interested in being friends with the UK and/or relations were better, they probably wouldn't have done it.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)It appears that we're [font size=4]ALL[/font] corrupt murderers (and/or their enablers-silent-bystanders). And no one can point the finger at the other:
- And yet, it still doesn't change a thing about them being right.....
atreides1
(16,064 posts)Is it?
Raster
(20,998 posts)William769
(55,142 posts)Denying human rights IMHO should deny any Government of anything! Russia is becoming a laughingstock (correction, is a laughing stock) and should be treated accordingly.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)What does that say about the US? Or don't you think we have a record of egregious human rights abuses around the world.
William769
(55,142 posts)and we will have a little chat.
As some want to believe, we are not the worlds police and yes there are problems in other Countries thats what the UN is for.
Now if you want the U.S. to go fix the worlds abuses with our military might we can have that conversation also.
Your mixing apples with oranges and it's been a major fail on your part.
1monster
(11,012 posts)Not in my book.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" Make a comparison list of the U.S. and Russia and their abuses against their citizens
What then is the precise amount of abuses a government may engage in before it no longer has the moral authority to speak out against abuse? One? Ten? One Hundred? One Thousand?
And on what objective measure is that number predicated on?
chknltl
(10,558 posts)Not even bringing up the millions we killed in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq in actual military operations against those classified as military combatants, I wish to focus on a single WMD that the United States has used in recent warzones.
We have known for years about this horror perpetrated on American citizens.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DgZVOOmi9gDE&v=gZVOOmi9gDE&gl=US
update 2011
http://m.
When I first joined DU, I was aware of our use of this WMD, that it was considered a crime against humanity and a warcrime according to the Geneva Conventions. I was not alone in my thinking.:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/ICTforAatT.html
Update 2011 Afghanistan:
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dk5J9RYoJdM0&v=k5J9RYoJdM0&gl=US
Add in what we did to Iraq, Kuwait and Bosnia with this WMD and the United States may indeed be among the top 10 war criminals of all times.
When it comes to human rights, our history within our own borders, from giving small pox blankets to Indians to our ludicrous debates over health care leaves us a laughing stock among nations of the civilized world.
No they don't laugh to our faces regarding our notions about human rights...because we carry the biggest stick on this planet and as is plain to see from the above links, we are currently the biggest dick on this planet too.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The drones are an example.
And even I am confused on this issue. I am pleased on the one hand that Obama eliminated Bin Laden as a threat. But I am displeased that it was done in such summary fashion without a trial, without a hearing.
Arguably, Bin Laden was at war with us. But other than videos and rumors, we never really established that in a court of law.
And then there is Guantanamo and rendition -- torture ending at least in one case quite possibly in death.
Our human rights record since the Bush administration is certainly nothing to be proud of.
We have no basis for scolding Russia. Although thus far, we have abused human rights less often than they have. If we keep telling ourselves that our violations of human rights are just and noble and necessary, so they are OK, we will catch up with Russia before we know it. And our children and children around the world will pay a terrible price for it.
The purpose of morality is to improve life. We each have our own definition of it. For me, morality is not a matter of simple sexual mores but rather of treating people correctly in the first place and trying to lessen human misery. Our human rights violations are therefore, for me, highly immoral.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)and he's the same person who assures us that it's ok to murder a 17 year old kid because he's a SUSPECTED terrorist.
Thanks, but I'll pass on this one. Fool me once...
Anyway, OBL was a CIA asset back in the day when we needed him, along with the muhajadeen, i.e., freedom fighters to fight the Russians.
As far as I'm concerned, assuming OBL is dead, it was likely a case of rolling up one of our assets that we no longer needed.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If there was a lie, it was that OBL was still living when Obama became president.
Who knows the truth? Only those who are present when it happens, and even they usually can't reliably describe the events accurately.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)that when the govt. lies to us so much of the time, we soon realize that we can't rely on anything they say.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Much like the US holding "detainees" in Guantanamo for an indefinite amount of time without charges...
There is no pure and righteous nation, and to believe that one nation may speak of human rights despite its own sins is, at its best, hypocritical.
cyclezealot
(4,802 posts)Russia as are all countries concerns are , that their embassies are sovereign and a piece of the homeland. And its the west that should fear Russia's rage over violating that right. Because , once Britain breaks that precedent , foreign embassies in Moscow have the most to fear as a result of the UK's actions.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)Sure!
Let's use your dick!!
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The Russians, as odious as they may be, are right on this one. The Americans,as so often seems to happen these days, are on the wrong side of this bun-fight.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)these governments with all of their lies hung out to the light just cannot stand to see their garbage exposed. Assange is a hero with what I suspect as trumped up charges brought against him. May he live to see the liars brought low. I agree with Russia. Stay out the embassy. Some people just can't stand to lose like baby bush, blair and the like ilk. They are disgusting human beings who deserve nothing but scorn and derision from the people.
Raster
(20,998 posts)
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Oh, that's just too funny!!!
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)What goes around, comes around.
The UK openly and blatantly violates Ecuador's embassy, then all embassies are vulnerable to search, siezure and arrest of whomever, whenever under whatever pretext. Including ours, btw.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)If UK does it to Ecuador then they are saying the rule of law does not exist
and this is very important law which protects the embassies all over the world
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
DearAbby
(12,461 posts)what Russia is guilty of in the past isn't relevant. What is, the agreement signed in Geneva. Russia is right, the next move is (OURS) the UK. Is this worth violating standing treaties for?
What's next? A declaration of war? Why do they want this man, so badly they would risk doing this? A simple rape charge? To plug the leak?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)There certainly are a lot of governments getting involved in Assange's predicament. I'm compelled to believe that there's a wee bit more to the story than the regular channels are letting on.
Can't remember the last time American, British, Swedish, Russian and Ecuadorian governments were either working in collusion or against the collusion, all concerned merely with an allegation of rape.
GardeningGal
(2,211 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Rape victims often go through life in psychological anguish even today, and some wish that the rapist had killed them.
"Merely," indeed.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I believe that rape, in and of itself should not receive the qualifier. I believe that allegations, in and of themselves, should.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Investigations lead to charges.
Charges lead to convictions.
Assange would not be the first prominent man to be convicted of rape and should have to answer to the police and prosecutor in Sweden.
It is even more important that he answer because he is prominent.
No one should be above the law.
tama
(9,137 posts)I smoke pot. This background has taught me that law should not be above any man.
TriplD
(176 posts)I'll say it - there are women who've falsely accused men of rape.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)and the women say there was no rape!
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)They texted their friends, bragging that they'd slept with Assange....
The Swedish investigators refused to bring a case until pressured to do so, conveeeeniently after the Wikileaks exposure of the US war crimes video tape of the gleeful murder of the journalists in Iraq.
The women themselves want no part of it, in fact one of them has left the country and won't come back for any part of any investigation or anything else.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Much of the male half of the population should be scoping out the closest embassy right about now.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)Lies, secrets & corruption...what are they so afraid of? It will come out, it's just a question of time.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I always take that to mean the world has gone crazy...and IMO, it has.
Uncle Joe
(58,275 posts)Thanks for the thread, dipsydoodle.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)
Lucy Goosey
(2,940 posts)...but they have absolutely no credibility right now.
Did I Just Type This
(77 posts)The U.S. invaded Iraq to prevent WMDs that didn't exist. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to fight the terrorists (even though 17 of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia). The U.S. are sanctioning Iran out of existence over WMDs that our own intelligence agencies say don't exist and aren't being researched. And you are worried about Russia's credibility?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)And welcome to the DU! We should all work to improve our great country especially when it's being led down such immoral paths as this!
struggle4progress
(118,214 posts)Update at 6
The Magistrate
(95,241 posts)"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie...' while feeling around for a brick."
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)"A diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell so nicely that you look forward to the trip."
The Brits used to be masters of that game. Nowadays, not so much.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Their gesture is meaningless.
Vidar
(18,335 posts)Considering that we've stolen our entire country from the Native Americans & Mexicans, with considerable genocide involved, our record is no cleaner than the Russians.
maindawg
(1,151 posts)and its about time someone stood up the our MIC and demanded that the line be set down. We have violated these UN treaties for the past 12 years . Our citizens need to demand that our govt respect human rights. Assange is an innocent man.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)That we don't know, since we weren't there and none of us are experts in Swedish law. However, Assange has the right to a trial in Sweden without the risk of rendition by the US. He is not a US citizen, and is not bound by US law. This the US govt knows, so they will simply detain him at an extralegal location without charges or trial, if they get their hands on him. Assange is right to fear this.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)This isn't about human rights. It's about the future of the diplomatic process.
crimson77
(305 posts)The second Assange steps off his property he is subject to arrest? Just nab him as he leaves.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)and, perhaps even more importantly, to international civility, which includes a country's untouchable embassy officials being able to negotiate disputes before they escalate into war or result in misunderstandings that can have vast consequences for all kinds of people--businesspeople, tourists, exchange students, aid groups, human rights groups and others from abroad, and people within the country and within neighboring countries and the region. Embassies don't always behave well but they are ESSENTIAL to peace and to peaceful endeavors and that has been true for thousands of years.
England has threatened to break the most fundamental premise of international law and civility. If they do so, no U.S. or English embassy official or other personnel, nor those of any other country, will be safe as negotiators and as spokespeople for their governments. What they have threatened is creating a world of pirates--a world of NO LAW.
It shouldn't be surprising after they joined Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld in slaughtering a hundred thousand innocent people to steal their oil, and colluded on rendition and torture. But in fact I AM surprised--indeed astonished--that they would threaten to make international discourse and peacemaking impossible. It speaks of desperation so profound that no one has yet fathomed it.
And what for? To get Julian Assange into the custody of Swedish authorities allegedly for questioning?--in regard to a case that was flimsy and absurd to begin with and has fallen apart before their eyes. The two accusing women have said that Assange did not rape them, is not violent and they do not fear him, and one has said she wants nothing more to do with this case. The Swedish prosecutors themselves are ambivalent about the case--have failed to bring charges and have refused to question Assange when he made himself available to them!
It is utterly bizarre that England would risk its own embassy officials all over the world, and those of everybody else, for THIS.
It is very clearly persecution for an act of journalism--very similar to Daniel Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, and Ellsberg himself has said the same, the only difference being that Assange is in the position of the New York Times which published the Pentagon Papers, not Ellsberg, who, as an employee of a Pentagon defense firm, disclosed the documents, and who was more in the position of Bradley Manning. They have no case whatever against Assange. He isn't even a U.S. citizen, as the editors of the Times were. He is an Australian citizen!
We can only wonder what may lie behind this. I'm thinking right now that the Brits may be worried about their own benighted leaders getting dragged into the World Court for various war or financial crimes--for things known or for things as yet unknown. They thought they had control of the world press--they even managed to "corporatize" the BBC--then along comes rogue journalist Assange who knows some things or may find out some things that could put people like Tony Blair in prison? Something even more threatening than this? I'm just guessing on the basis of the extraordinary lengths the U.K. is willing to go to, to silence and disable this man, with its closest ally, the U.S., lurking in the background. What on earth is going on with this?
Never--never!--would I have expected the U.K. to threaten such a thing--invasion of Ecuador's embassy, a peaceful, democratic country, or invasion of ANY embassy. Could this be about the Malvinas (the Falklands) and all that oil off Argentina's coast? And/or about Ecuador, a member of OPEC, and its oil? Or about Ecuador in combination with other countries with leftist leaders--among them the leaders of Brazil and Venezuela--who are all insisting that their countries' resources benefit their countries' peoples? A "divide and conquer" tactic? Or, on the other hand, pushback by the U.K. because of LatAm unity on certain things (including the Falklands)? ('Defy us and we will spit on your embassies!') Is it an omen of Oil War II: South America? It's very worrisome.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)your post brings up many intriguing points. Makes me wonder also what may be in the "insurance file" they released and when or if the key to that file will ever be exposed.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)peacock feathers, that is...
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Fucking asshole piece of shit opportunists.
(Note, I support Assange but I don't support this hypocrisy.)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is really important that other nations insist that the US and the UK obey international law. If that does not happen, if we are allowed to continue to violate basic principles, this world is going to get very ugly very quickly. The issue of human rights violations within nations is also very important, and yes what has been done to Pussy Riot is crap, but these are separate issues.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)The question is are we going to champion their selective judgment this time?
Seems like, yeah, pretty much.
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)First, the Latin American countries warn London not to do this.
Them, they can ignore.
But this is another permanent member of the UN Security Council.
This is getting pretty intense for a rape case, doncha think?