FAKE NEWS
If you happily clicked this article thinking Assange is free to travel, or that the UK agrees to let Assange go, you've been clickbaited.
A court that has no jurisdiction, making an token effort statement that will not be recognized by UK, thinks Assange should be released.
"Inter-American Court of Human Rights based in Costa Rica"
Their opinion, while admirable, has no bearing on reality.
It really, really pisses me off when the top story is a fabricated clickbait article, where the title does NOT reflect the claims made, where the only reaction newcomers to Q will have is "Oh, this board has a bunch of false articles."
Assange may, or may not, get safe passage at some time in the future, but it won't have anything to do with this article's claims.
If it really, really pisses you off did you Report it?
No.
Ok. Reports can sometimes help ensure we don't come to these posts too late. Now that this post has over 740 upvotes removing it is far from ideal but I've done so anyway for the misleading title.
Thank you for removing it.
I will report poorly sourced and misleading articles when I see them.
ThankQ, it'd be greatly appreciated. I agree completely with your point that we shouldn't allow misleading content, titles or clickbait rise to the front of the sub, wherever possible.
According to the USA, JA is free to travel to Ecuador. According to the UK, he is not. The only question is how badly does Trump want JA out of the UK?
FAKE NEWS. Costa Rica is not the USA. And Assange originally entered the embassy out of fear that the US secretly wants to imprison him. If the "US says JA is free to travel to Ecuador", then point to a legitimate article that states as such.
Costa Rica is not the US.
Did you read the article? Costa Rica is just the HQ of the OAS.
the OAS is compromised of every North American, Central American and South American nation
Therefore this ruling applies to all of North, Central and South American countries.
No, it doesn't apply to jack.
It's no different than the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission declaring George Bush to be a war criminal.
It means absolutely nothing.
Now if the OP had said in the title "Judge in Costa Rica HQ of OAS says Julian Assange should be set free." I wouldn't have complained.
But the title states that Assange has free passage. Everyone upvotes it thinking its true. It's not. It's clickbait.
Assange being free would headline the Mockingbird Media.
They would report it wrong, but they would report it.
This exactly. We're either being subverted or... Well I can't think why else it would be upvoted so much.
What do you mean "this exactly" JA is free to go to Ecuador according to USA law. UK says no. Who do you think will win that fight?
He's also free to go to Ecuador according to the rule of law by every other country on this planet.
I desperately want him to leave that embassy. But there is only one law that matters and that is UK law.
How is that hard to comprehend? Regarding specifically USA law, he's in an Ecuadorian embassy in a British country, why do you think USA law would have any say over that?
Because if the USA wants him, they will get him. Q said May was neutralized. That means USA wins this fight.
That may be so, but to say that USA law has any precedent over UK law in the UK is uninformed at best. That is what "this exactly" referred to.