That was one of the charges, the consent one was a bit more serious. But yeah why not? It would be a very visble soapbox for him to shout his beliefs. The only problem of course is that it doesnt outweigh the freedom of Assange in his mind.

And of course theyre not going to invade an embassy. Thats what happens when you leave someone trying to grandstand in charge of the country when you go on holiday.

>> ^Mauru:

Sometimes, I catch myself thinking it would be a good thing if Assange faced a US court. The entire shabam would go up in smoke, a healthy prime-time debate about medial responsibilities, transparency and the judicial process of/with political prisoners in/around the united states would spawn...
...which far outweighs the personal freedom of one person...
-that's ususally the part where I wake up and shake the confetti out of frontal lobe.
BTW: Hey let's go invade an embassy so we can get some dude convicted of not using a condom in another country.

And you sound like his mother. You want him to get away with his crimes because what? He happened to run a company that released something someone else stole? That make sexual assault ok in your book?

Theres been no acting outside the law, except by Assange with the assault, breaking bail, fleeing justice etc. so i really dont see what breaking tradition youre complaining about.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^thumpa28:
Why should the swedish government do anything more than stick to the extradition process? When has it become a part of the extradition process that the person being extradited sets out the terms of his extradition?
'but Assange is special!'
No, no he isnt, hes just another criminal in hiding. The fact he says he is and that you seriously think that it should affect whether or not he is brought to justice, makes me glad that we have in this country an independent judiciary who rely on more than the latest daily mail opinion for their decision making process.

You're absolutely right. They should stick to the process.
And when Ecuador decides that julian assange's application for asylum is valid and they want to honour it, we should respect that process too. To do anything else would be hypocritical, correct?
If sweden want assange so much, or if america want him so much; let them break diplomatic tradition. Why us? We probably invented half of the traditions for christ sake (i assume diplomacy was established in or before colonial times), if we can't stick to them then who will?
To me it sounds like you simply want assange's blood. Nothing you've said on this topic has made me think you're genuinely after justice. You sound like he's stolen money off you.

>> ^thumpa28:

Crap news about a crap person then. Hardly promotion worthy.


This is actually very much noteworthy. Even if you ignore the person they are reporting about it used to be pretty much common code that if you were to rip on other entities in the "news and journalism"-buisness, you'd do it in an editorial or sth titled oppinion piece- as a writer/editor you'd want to keep a door open in case of, you know, having to look for stories on the other side of the political spectrum.

This, in journalism circles equals to the NYT publicly stating to any other potential sources: "We will not accept your stories unless they are greenlighted or/and will potentially help backstab you if you come to us with yet unpublished information".

Good luck recovering from that, NYT

>> ^dag:

Thomas Jefferson said when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
I don't think the US government is afraid of its people - I wish they were.
I think there's more to the dysfunction in American government than the balance of fear.


"Government" is not a person. Our government is comprised of individuals, every one of them a human being (with the exception of two androids and four pod people). I think they DO fear us, which is why they're so prone to pandering. Worse, though, is that WE are our government. By and large, WE put these people there.
I think one of the biggest problems we have is the two-party system, an unfortunate inevitability of the First Past the Post voting system.
One thing the FPtP video doesn't really mention is what happens once the parties have established their dominance - indoctrination. We're encouraged to side with Republicans or Democrats, and once we've done that, over time we're inclined to start buying into the entire party platform. You can't be anti-abortion and pro-gay-rights. We immediately jump to the defense of any party tenet attacked by our "misguided" opposition. Minor differences of opinion become sacred cows. Perhaps this is a natural herd mentality, a defense mechanism against marginalization, or avoidance of peer conflict.
Whatever the causes, the outcome is gridlock and resentment. Nothing gets done because compromise is weakness. Candidates are only able to rise to power by adhering to the party line.
So I begin my post suggesting that government is individuals, and end by suggesting that individuals cede their power to the parties.
The system is broken. Checks and balances only function when sufficient individual agency is involved.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Thanks!!
In reply to this comment by lavoll:
*promote

Your video, Julian Assange Hit Piece In New York Times, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^thumpa28:

Why should the swedish government do anything more than stick to the extradition process? When has it become a part of the extradition process that the person being extradited sets out the terms of his extradition?
'but Assange is special!'
No, no he isnt, hes just another criminal in hiding. The fact he says he is and that you seriously think that it should affect whether or not he is brought to justice, makes me glad that we have in this country an independent judiciary who rely on more than the latest daily mail opinion for their decision making process.


You're absolutely right. They should stick to the process.

And when Ecuador decides that julian assange's application for asylum is valid and they want to honour it, we should respect that process too. To do anything else would be hypocritical, correct?

If sweden want assange so much, or if america want him so much; let them break diplomatic tradition. Why us? We probably invented half of the traditions for christ sake (i assume diplomacy was established in or before colonial times), if we can't stick to them then who will?

To me it sounds like you simply want assange's blood. Nothing you've said on this topic has made me think you're genuinely after justice. You sound like he's stolen money off you.

Yes and i just want us to keep to ourselves for a while. This doesn't concern us. If ecuador have seen fit to grant him asylum for protection from the swedish or american government, then we should respect their choice and allow him to leave britain. Anything else is just utterly wrong, and an insult to many hundreds of years of british tradition. It's between them and sweden (and potentially america), not us.

If the olympics has told me anything it's this; why does britain need to change and become more modern at all? Why must this country chase people around the planet in the name of freedom like some psycho vigilante? Because the american government are?

I want us to just be happy with who we are; quaint, friendly, intelligent and skilled. These things will become increasingly useful as time goes by. That's how i propose to fix "broken britain". Focus on our own development.
In reply to this comment by messenger:
Curious: who is "we"? Are you British?>> ^dannym3141:
Sure. Then the south american nations decide that the falklands is no longer british territory either.
Or how about ANY of our embassies ANYWHERE in the world? It'd be extremely uncool and we'd be lucky not to have to suffer consequences for it.
Last time we made an international gesture when opinion was split, we ended up with the fucking iraq war. The fact that we're on the verge of doing someone else's dirty work again so soon makes me feel fucking sick. Just what type of fucking clowns are in charge here?

Russia has already been swinging their dicks in the UK direction over this, because they have harbored "enemies of the state" from them. If not an outright war, the UK will fuck up their diplomatic powers significantly.
>> ^messenger:

With Ecuador? In the UK? That'd be even shorter than the Anglo-Zanzibar War, and we'd have streaming footage of the whole thing. That'd be cool.>> ^gwiz665:
UK's gonna start a war if they do.

Curious: who is "we"? Are you British?>> ^dannym3141:
Sure. Then the south american nations decide that the falklands is no longer british territory either.
Or how about ANY of our embassies ANYWHERE in the world? It'd be extremely uncool and we'd be lucky not to have to suffer consequences for it.
Last time we made an international gesture when opinion was split, we ended up with the fucking iraq war. The fact that we're on the verge of doing someone else's dirty work again so soon makes me feel fucking sick. Just what type of fucking clowns are in charge here?

>> ^messenger:

With Ecuador? In the UK? That'd be even shorter than the Anglo-Zanzibar War, and we'd have streaming footage of the whole thing. That'd be cool.>> ^gwiz665:
UK's gonna start a war if they do.



Sure. Then the south american nations decide that the falklands is no longer british territory either.

Or how about ANY of our embassies ANYWHERE in the world? It'd be extremely uncool and we'd be lucky not to have to suffer consequences for it.

Last time we made an international gesture when opinion was split, we ended up with the fucking iraq war. The fact that we're on the verge of doing someone else's dirty work again so soon makes me feel fucking sick. Just what type of fucking clowns are in charge here?

With Ecuador? In the UK? That'd be even shorter than the Anglo-Zanzibar War, and we'd have streaming footage of the whole thing. That'd be cool.>> ^gwiz665:

UK's gonna start a war if they do.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

"Last night WikiLeaks said he would give a "live" statement "in front of" the embassy on Sunday, two months since he entered it. He could be seized if it is deemed he has stepped outside the building's diplomatically protected zone.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said the maverick Australian would not be allowed to fly to his newly adopted country and must instead answer rape allegations in Sweden."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9480944/Julian-Assange-to-issue-statement-in-front-of-embassy-haven.html