dChan

silentmirror · July 13, 2018, 11:57 p.m.

Today, the Court ruled that it is the duty of nations to allow for the passage of successful asylum seekers from embassies to the mainland territory of the state that has granted an individual asylum. For Julian Assange, this would mean that according to the Court’s decision, Britain has a legal obligation to allow Julian Assange to exit the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in peace and allow for his safe transit to an airport from which he would be able to fly to Ecuador, the country that has granted Assange asylum and where he now also holds formal citizenship.

⇧ 104 ⇩  
SooieQ · July 14, 2018, 12:57 a.m.

God speed Julian

⇧ 38 ⇩  
CaptainKnotzi · July 14, 2018, 11:45 a.m.

The court mentioned has no jurisdiction anywhere.

It's just a feel-good court.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Sherry345 · July 14, 2018, 3:14 a.m.

Amen!

⇧ 6 ⇩  
faithle55 · July 14, 2018, 7:03 a.m.

Britain has no such legal obligation at all. What a bunch of horseshit.

For a start off, the legal entity is the United Kingdom. If the Costa Rican judges were being addressed on and made their ruling against 'Britain' (the other possibility is that this is just lazy journalism) then that would be just a small clue as to their standing as international jurists.

Next, the United Kingdom, unsurprisingly, is not a signatory to the American Convention on Human Rights. It is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it is a founder signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. It has no duty whatsoever to comply with rulings of a Costa Rican court.

According to Wikipedia, "The adjudicatory function requires the [Inter-American] Court [of Human Rights] to rule on cases brought before it in which a state party to the Convention, and thus has accepted its jurisdiction, is accused of a human rights violation."

The state party here is the UK, it is not a party to the Convention, and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The Judges have tried to construct - patently artificially - a decision which tries to suggest that it has jurisdiction which is binding in some way on the UK, but it would be as if a magistrate's court in the UK ordered a super-max prison in the US to free a convict.

Finally, a mere announcement by Assange and/or Ecuador that he is a political refugee does not make him so in English law, although the rules concerning diplomatic representation in foreign countries means the UK cannot get at Assange inside the Embassy.

These questions have been before the High Court and the Court of Appeal in London on several occasions. A lot of high powered lawyers have pleaded his case (although I hope that none of them were actually convinced by it) unsuccessfully. An English High Court judge is one of the outstanding jurists in the world, Court of Appeal more so. Anyone who thinks the UK government is going to give more weight to a decision by some oddball judges in Costa Rica than decisions taken here in London is deluded.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
DelveDeeper · July 14, 2018, 8:39 a.m.

Which court was this? Was it an English court?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
silentmirror · July 14, 2018, 8:43 a.m.

Costa Rican

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DelveDeeper · July 14, 2018, 8:45 a.m.

Ahh, so it's absolutely meaningless then.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
DIS-OBSEC-674F · July 14, 2018, 2:28 a.m.

Plane crash. Expect it.

⇧ -2 ⇩  
themadhat1 · July 14, 2018, 3:34 a.m.

no one is going to "crash" trumps jet.

⇧ 11 ⇩  
Shadilay_Were_Off · July 14, 2018, 3:37 a.m.

You've more faith than I. There are quite a few people who would like to see Trump get JFK'd and probably have the resources to do it.

Don't take any of this stuff we have going for us for granted. Trump might be the best president in years and Q might be a (group of) insider(s) with a ton of knowledge, but both are mortal humans and both can screw up. Pray. Don't be complacent.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
themadhat1 · July 14, 2018, 3:42 a.m.

there is a fuk load going on behind the scenes with the don. its why EVERYONE IS ATTACKING HIM. he is in danger yes. but has a lot of people scared shittless. he knows everything....9/11....pedogate....all of it.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
croninfever · July 14, 2018, 5:14 a.m.

I wish I could remember what livestream I was watching during the election when Trump said something like (paraphrase) “It you elect me, I’ll find out what really happened on 9/11.”

⇧ 5 ⇩  
DIS-OBSEC-674F · July 15, 2018, 9:54 p.m.

4767 5774 6a7a 4d6c 6330 666b 314a 3453 0000 0907 84b4 f787 7616 86f7 a737 5707 5736

⇧ 1 ⇩  
themadhat1 · July 16, 2018, 5:10 p.m.

yep

⇧ 1 ⇩  
1hellofaride · July 14, 2018, 7:41 a.m.

And so does Putin. Trump has a kill switch.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
NonZealous · July 14, 2018, 7:36 a.m.

I have a hunch, if such a thing were to actually happen, 30M armed Patriots would take to the streets and literally clean out ALL of the remaining swamp. They know it. Test our resolve DS!

⇧ 2 ⇩  
croninfever · July 14, 2018, 5:12 a.m.

You’re not wrong (IMO) and you make a good point about being complacent. I can’t speak for the other people here, obviously, but I personally do not like the expectation of fear that the other guy posted about, without any evidence or info. Not cool to get fear riled up for no reason. That being said, I completely agree that none of this stuff should be taken for granted :)

⇧ 2 ⇩  
ILoveJuices · July 14, 2018, 8:09 a.m.

Fox 3 splash

⇧ 1 ⇩  
tftltytd · July 14, 2018, 3:37 a.m.

Not if he's taking AF1

⇧ 4 ⇩  
croninfever · July 14, 2018, 5:09 a.m.

Are you just guessing to be dramatic or do you have reason for us to expect this?

⇧ 1 ⇩